Benghazi Coverup Uncovered

American Thinker

BBC  has apologized  for its coverage of the Benghazi murders; ABC has unraveled the mendacious tale of the talking points ‘ genesis and the Congressional  hearings this week have dramatically established the administration’s elaborate  lies about how our ambassador and his brave defenders were murdered and its  failure to protect them. Maybe now the press will feel it’s okay to get off  their duffs and report how a thoroughly incompetent administration, motivated  solely by self-interest, left our ambassador and others to be murdered and then  lied about it with consequences to us all.


Were  this a trial ‘s closing moments, counsel for the prosecution would be reminding  the jury that if a witness has lied about a substantive matter in the hearing  they can assume he’s lying about everything.


Here  are the relevant  timeline features from Doug Ross (time is local D.C. time)

US  Time 9.11.12

15:59  Department of Defense orders unmanned surveillance aircraft to reposition  overhead Benghazi mission [ed. It appears we sought Libyan permission to do this  and received it]

16:05  Department of state email notified White House, Pentagon of  attack

16:32  Secretary of defense Panetta, Joint Chiefs of Staff informed of attack by  Department of Defense

17:00  Obama and Biden and Panetta meet at White House

17:06  Third Department of Defense email says Ansar al-Sharia claim  attack

17:22  Hillary blames the video [and spontaneous outburst by Libyans]


10:50  Obama meets with Clinton at Department of State

18:50  Obama flies to Las Vegas for fundraiser

John  Podhoretz at the NY Post zeroed  in on testimony proving the administration lied in placing the blame on a  spontaneous outburst responsive to the Nakoula  Basseley Nakoula  video:


…we  learned during the hearing that on Sept. 12, State Department official Beth  Jones said flatly in an e-mail, “The group that conducted the attacks, Ansar  al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic terrorists.”

We  can say this because we heard the testimony of the No. 2 US diplomat in Libya,  Greg Hicks — in which he said no one on the ground in Libya had any doubt it  was a planned assault by Ansar al-Sharia. The first thing his boss, Ambassador  Chris Stevens, told Hicks over the phone was, “We’re under attack.” Stevens was  murdered shortly thereafter.

We  can say this because we learned last week that the State Department Operations  Center sent out a bulletin on Sept. 11 stating that Ansar al-Sharia had claimed  responsibility.

Hicks  said that in his conversations with State Department officials back home,  including Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton, neither he nor they nor anybody else  said anything about a spontaneous demonstration or anything about a YouTube video.


Because you may have forgotten how outrageous was the  role played by Hillary Clinton and the White House in this and how the media’s  defensive blockers have kept the truth hidden from view, let me give you a quick  review of some of the most repulsive behavior both before  and after the 2012 election.


America  Rising PAC has put together an outstanding  (and short) video contrasting Clinton’s statements earlier with what we  learned this week:



Politico,  which normally is a mouthpiece for the administration, has further videos of the original (unsworn) Clinton testimony before  Congress and that of Deputy Chief of Mission Hicks and excoriated her for the  role she played in making a patsy of Nakoula and undermining the First  Amendment,


His  video, which did spark violent protests in the Muslim world by the kind of  people who are looking for an excuse to protest, should have been an object  lesson in freedom. Obama should have explained that our culture is full of  disreputable film directors and producers. Some of them are even honored by the  Academy.

Instead,  Nakoula ended up the patsy in a tawdry coverup. The State Department Operations  Center reported to Washington immediately that the Benghazi attack was an  assault carried out by Islamic militants. The falsehoods about Benghazi weren’t  a product of the fog of war; they were  the product of the fog of politics. Desperate to minimize the attack and deflect  responsibility, Team Obama evaded and obfuscated.

Steve  Hayes of The Weekly Standard notes that even the politicized anodyne  talking points left over after the administration’s spinmiesters had thoroughly  edited the CIA’s original talking points about Benghazi didn’t mention the  Nakoula video. During her infamous Sunday show circuit, Ambassador to the U.N.  Susan Rice nonetheless said, “What sparked the violence was a very hateful video  on the Internet. It was a reaction to a video that had nothing to do with the  United States.”

Very  few people have been willing to stick up for Nakoula (with “Instapundit” Glenn  Reynolds a prominent and dogged exception). Nakoula’s character is sketchy and  his work is execrable. Yet the First Amendment applies to him all the same, even  if he might have reason to doubt it as he serves out a sentence that never would  have come about if he hadn’t offended the wrong  people.


Not  only did Clinton (and Rice) repeatedly lie to but as well, she made this  video directed to Pakistan repeating the lie that Nakoula was the one at  fault. Clinton and Obama even brazenly repeated the lies standing in front of  the coffins of the dead at Andrews Field and promising their survivors that the  filmmaker would be punished..


The  story never made sense and I said  so at the time. The big press, however, the press that could have made a  difference, to its everlasting shame, pulled every defensive trick in the book  to cover for the administration liars and their fairytale.


Candy  Crowley famously interjected herself into the Romney-Obama debate to get Obama  off the hot seat with a false interpretation of what the administration had  done, suggesting that the president and his team had early blamed terrorists for  the assault when they most certainly had not: at best in the quote she referred  to he was making a  very generic claim, not disputing his own team’s official account that this  was a reaction to the video.


A  cabal of reporters coordinated  their efforts to undercut Mitt Romney’s charge defused a press conference by  him condemning our response to the Libyan attacks:


It  is not uncommon for reporters to coordinate their line of questioning ahead of a  press conference where there will be limited time and only a handful of  reporters selected to ask questions.

However,  some conservatives have expressed irritation that the reporters’ coordination  focused on the tone and timing of Romney’s statement rather than the policy  proscriptions he would advance in order to preempt future attacks similar to  Tuesday’s assault on the American consulate in Benghazi. h/t The Right  Scoop


As  they treated the issues from the beginning until late this week, with rare  exceptions, such as Fox News and CBS’s Sharyl Attkisson, the press has treated  the issue as a nonstarter if they fitted it in at all in between news of the  shape of the Kardashians’ derrieres, the Cleveland child kidnappers, the Arias  trial, and any other bit of fluff that carried with it no downside for Obama and  little work for them.


When  pressed at her first Congressional appearance — after time off for a  self-reported head injury and wine tasting abroad — Hillary famously said of  the matter of the false account,” What difference, at this point,  does it  make?”  This week, we learned from the men on the ground in Libya what  difference it made — because of the false narrative we undercut and discredited  our allies, the officials of the new Libyan government. They in turn delayed the  entry of the FBI to the scene of the attack, making a proper investigation  impossible. In sum, the lie obstructed justice and undoubtedly played a role in  our continued inability to identify suspects or to apprehend them. Of course, it  goes without saying voters in 2012 might well have thought a great deal less of  Obama had the truth been revealed.


More  than the substance of the report was utterly false. So were the claims of its  authorship. Contrary to the assertions that the administration talking points  were prepared by the intelligence community , we learned from ABC that they were  edited 12 times at the White House and State Department to hide the  truth.


ABC  News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they  were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely  by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador  to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after  that attack.

White  House emails reviewed  by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State  Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that  references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well  references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months  preceding the attack.

That  would appear to directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney  said about the talking points in November.

“Those  talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC’s  best assessments of what they thought had happened,” Carney told reporters at  the White House press briefing on November 28, 2012. “The White House and the  State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to  those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word  ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was  inaccurate.”

Summaries  of White House and State Department emails — some of which were first published  by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard — show that the State Department had  extensive input into the editing of the talking points.


White  House Press Secretary Jay Carney said none of this contradicts what he said  about the talking points because ultimately all versions were actually written  and signed-off by the CIA.

“The  CIA drafted these talking points and redrafted these talking points,” Carney  said. “The fact that there are inputs is always the case in a process like this,  but the only edits made by anyone here at the White House were stylistic and  nonsubstantive. They corrected the description of the building or the facility  in Benghazi from consulate to diplomatic facility and the like. And ultimately,  this all has been discussed and reviewed and provided in enormous levels of  detail by the administration to Congressional investigators, and the attempt to  politicize the talking points, again, is part of an effort to, you know, chase  after what isn’t the substance here.”


Carney’s  notion of “stylistic and nonsubstantive” and mine are different. I’d call the  changes major and meaningful.


Stephen  Hayes at the Weekly Standard, who has done an outstanding job, has more  on how the CIA’s report was mangled beyond recognition by “senior administrative  policymakers” He names  the fairytale creators as Victoria Nuland , “State Department spokeswoman”,  Ben Rhodes, “a top Obama foreign policy and national security adviser” (See here),  Jake Sullivan, then deputy chief of staff to Clinton and now top national  security advisor to Vice-President Biden.


What’s  clear is that the final version did not reflect the views of the top  intelligence official on the ground in Benghazi, who had reported days earlier  that the assault had been a terrorist attack conducted by jihadists with links  to al Qaeda, or the top U.S. diplomat in Libya, Gregory Hicks.

Hicks  testified last week that he was not consulted on the talking points and was  surprised when he saw Rice make a case that had little to do with what had  happened in Benghazi. “I was stunned,” he said. “My jaw  dropped.”

The  hearings last week produced fresh details on virtually every aspect of the  Benghazi controversy and raised new questions. By the end of some six hours of  testimony, several Democrats on the committee had joined their Republican  colleagues in calling for more hearings, additional witnesses, and the release  of unclassified documents related to the attacks in Benghazi.

On  May 9, House speaker John Boehner echoed the calls for those unclassified  Benghazi documents to be made public. He had two specific requests. First,  Boehner called for the release of an email from Beth Jones, acting assistant  secretary for Near East affairs, sent on September 12. Jones wrote to her  colleagues to describe a conversation she’d had with Libya’s ambassador to the  United States. When the Libyan raised the possibility that loyalists to Muammar  Qaddafi might have been involved, Jones corrected him. “When he said his  government suspected that former Gadhafi regime elements carried out the  attacks, I told him that the group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al Sharia,  is affiliated with Islamic terrorists.” Among those copied on the email: Jake  Sullivan, Victoria Nuland, Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns, and Cheryl  Mills, Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff and longtime  confidante.

Second,  Boehner asked the White House to release the 100 pages of internal  administration emails related to the drafting and editing of the talking points.  Sources tell The Weekly Standard that House Republicans will subpoena them if  the administration does not turn them over voluntarily.

Two  weeks ago, Secretary of State John Kerry said it was time to “move on” from  Benghazi. More recently, Jay Carney suggested the same thing, explaining that  Benghazi had happened “a long time ago.”

But  it’s increasingly clear that congressional Republicans, and many Americans, will  not move on until the outstanding questions about Benghazi are  answered.


Congressman  Chaffetz has indicated he wants Hillary to testify again before the committee,  if necessary under subpoena.


Besides  the reasons for the administration’s obfuscations and lies, it is now necessary  to determine whether we did what we could have to rescue our beleaguered men on  the ground. The committee heard that there were two orders to “Stand down” from  assisting them. Lt. General McInerney speaking on Lou Dobbs said, “There is only  one person who can say stand down and that’s the president”. What took place  between 5 p.m. on Sept 11 when Panetta met with Obama and 6:50 p.m. the  following day when Obama left to fundraise in Las Vegas? Perhaps only they can  clarify that. Panetta is subject to subpoena. Will the president be asked to  testify? Will he refuse?


And  why did the administration attempt this ridiculous charade? Because they feared  its impact on the election? Because there was something going on in Libya they  do not want us to know? Is it a Middle Eastern version of Fast & Furious  with our giving weaponry to our enemies?


In  the meantime, we can be sure that others will join the people who leaked to  Hayes and Karl. James Rosen thinks so, too:


Fox’s @JamesRosenFNC reports that  “several more” #Benghazi whistleblowers are considering coming forward,” including CIA  officials.


Such  a faithless administration with its already demonstrated willingness to cast  blame on others and to sacrifice those lower down the totem pole does not  inspire loyalty.

Read more: Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

5 thoughts on “Benghazi Coverup Uncovered

  1. hang em high Hussein that is

  2. haven’t heard one word about bengazi on my local tv stations even thoug i contacted them about this cricketesi tell you crickets

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s