White House narrative on Libya all but collapsed

posted at 9:21 am on September 21, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

On Sunday, the White House narrative on the assassination of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi was that they died in a protest that “spun out of control,” as UN Ambassador Susan Rice insisted on multiple talk shows.  That narrative hasn’t even lasted out the week.  By Wednesday, officials in the US government began acknowledging that the so-called “riot” at the consulate in Libya had elements of planning and heavy weapons; by yesterday, Barack Obama himself refused to answer questions about the nature of the attack.  There may not have even been a protest at the consulate before the attack.

Today, The Daily Beast’s Eli Lake looks at the collapse of the Obama narrative on the attack, and the questions it raises about the administration’s handling of consular security in an area known to be rife with Islamist militias and terrorists:

Now there is mounting evidence that the White House’s initial portrayal of the attacks as a mere outgrowth of protest was incorrect—or, at the very least, incomplete. The administration’s story itself has recently begun to shift, with Matthew Olsen, the director of the National Counter-Terrorism Center, telling Congress on Wednesday that the attackers may have had links to Al Qaeda and Carney characterizing the incident as a “terrorist attack.” (Hillary Clinton announced on Thursday that she was putting together a panel to look into the incident.)

But other indications that the White House’s early narrative was faulty are also beginning to emerge. One current U.S. intelligence officer working on the investigation into the incident told The Daily Beast that the attackers had staked out and monitored the U.S. consulate in Benghazi before the attack, a move that suggests pre-planning.

What’s more, two U.S. intelligence officials told The Daily Beast that the intelligence community is currently analyzing an intercept between a Libyan politician whose sympathies are with al Qaeda and the Libyan militia known as the February 17 Brigade—which had been charged with providing local security to the consulate. In the intercept, the Libyan politician apparently asks an officer in the brigade to have his men stand down for a pending attack—another piece of evidence implying the violence was planned in advance.

This leads to all sorts of questions about the White House’s actions, before and after the assassination.  First, Benghazi is located in the eastern part of Libya, an area where al-Qaeda and other Islamist militias have operated years before the fall of Moammar Qaddafi.  The fall of the previous regime has made operation even easier for these groups, and they didn’t have too much difficulty before; many of the AQ recruits in Iraq between 2003 and the surge came from this area of Libya.  On the anniversary of 9/11, one would have expected the US to have anticipated an attack attempt and provided extra security for its diplomatic missions in Muslim nations, but especially Benghazi.

This might explain the rush to blame the entire mess on a weeks-old YouTube video.  Thanks to that rush to judgment, the White House was able to initially deflect criticism of its security failure to the filmmakers — and claim that its Middle East policy wasn’t to blame for the assassination and the other riots.  That narrative has collapsed, too, writes Charles Krauthammer:

It’s now three years since the Cairo speech. Look around. The Islamic world is convulsed with an explosion of anti-Americanism. From Tunisiato Lebanon, American schools, businesses anddiplomatic facilities set ablaze. A U.S. ambassador and three others murdered in Benghazi. The black flag of Salafism, of which al-Qaeda is a prominent element, raised over our embassies in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and Sudan.

The administration, staggered and confused,blames it all on a 14-minute trailer for a film no one has seen and may not even exist.

What else can it say? Admit that its doctrinal premises were supremely naive and its policies deeply corrosive to American influence? …

Islamists rise across North Africa from Mali to Egypt. Iran repeatedly defies U.S. demands on nuclear enrichment, then, as a measure of its contempt for what America thinks, openly admits that its Revolutionary Guards are deployed in Syria. Russia, after arming Assad, warns America to stay out, while the secretary of state delivers vapid lectures about Assad “meeting” his international “obligations.” The Gulf states beg America to act on Iran; Obama strains mightily to restrain . . . Israel.

Sovereign U.S. territory is breached and U.S. interests are burned. And what is the official response? One administration denunciation after another — of a movie trailer! A request to Google to “review” the trailer’s presence on YouTube. And a sheriff’s deputies’ midnight “voluntary interview” with the suspected filmmaker. This in the land of the First Amendment.

Don’t expect Obama to take ownership of this narrative collapse.  In fact, the administration has already offered up its patsy on the altars of five Sunday talk shows last week:

Some wondered why the White House sent a UN Ambassador — who had no direct connection to anything related to the story — out to sell the “protest spun out of control” message.  Answer: Susan Rice is a lot more expendable than Hillary Clinton, who as Secretary of State should have been the one explaining the week’s events, not the UN Ambassador.  Obama sent Rice out to be made a fool — and one has to wonder whether Rice volunteered for that assignment, or Hillary refused it.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

That clip leaves out the prior conversation where you now have Jay Carney basically saying “Of course it was a terrorist attack. What are you, stupid?” They ripped him apart.

Marcus on September 21, 2012 at 9:24 AM

(Hillary Clinton announced on Thursday that she was putting together a panel to look into the incident.)

Like the DOJ put together a panel to look into Fast and Furious, then remarkably found a single low-level staffer to blame it all on?

FU, Killary, you bungling clod, you got people killed because of your muslim pandering.

Bishop on September 21, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Why does Susan Rice remind me of Colin Powell with his presentation about WMD before the run up to the Iraq War? Except there was much less truth in what Ambassador Rice had to say on the Sunday programs.

Paul-Cincy on September 21, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Now there is mounting evidence that the White House’s initial portrayal of the attacks as a mere outgrowth of protest was incorrect a VERY BIG LIE—or, at the very least, incomplete a BIG LIE.

Here I fixed it…

mnjg on September 21, 2012 at 9:25 AM

He’s parroting the enemy’s propaganda, the upshot of which is to restrict speech rights. Once he committed to that, there was no going back regardless of what anyone else says, even admin spokesmen.

He’s running ads on Poheestohn TV stipulating to this myth!

He’ll hang onto this narrative like OJ.

Akzed on September 21, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Yet, somehow Obama will still get votes. The USA has cancer, and it’s medical name is “liberaloma”.

AubieJon on September 21, 2012 at 9:26 AM

That clip leaves out the prior conversation where you now have Jay Carney basically saying “Of course it was a terrorist attack. What are you, stupid?” They ripped him apart.

Marcus on September 21, 2012 at 9:24 AM

Dont suppose you have a link of some kind? I’m not used to watching the media jacknapes actually press Carney on anything, I’d love to see it.

Bishop on September 21, 2012 at 9:26 AM

The filmmaker should sue for the max.

lilium479 on September 21, 2012 at 9:29 AM

One has to wonder why the White House even attempted to lie about this.

blink on September 21, 2012 at 9:26 AM

Let me take a stab: ELECTION?

hillsoftx on September 21, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Romney/Ryan need to keep the pressure up on this. Obama needs to be beat over the head about what transpired before and after the attack. And, what was the Ambassador and the three others actually doing in Benghazi with virtually no security detail. This needs to be explored further..

Static21 on September 21, 2012 at 9:29 AM

One has to wonder why the White House even attempted to lie about this. blink on September 21, 2012 at 9:26 AM

As a pretext to restrict free speech, an agenda shared by both Leftists and Muslims.

Just like F&F was a pretext to restrict 2nd Amendment rights.

Pay attention.

We can only wonder what he’s got up his sleeve e.g. for restricting 5th Amendment rights in the few short months he has left.

Akzed on September 21, 2012 at 9:30 AM

I really care less about the messenger than to get behind why the White House lied and doubled down on the lies. To go from their original story to coming just this side of admitting it was a planned terrorist attack in a week’s time needs explanation.

But I do note that the Obama campaign has stopped the “I got Osama” rhetoric.

Happy Nomad on September 21, 2012 at 9:30 AM

blink on September 21, 2012 at 9:26 AM

Because they are afraid that the weapons used to attack the consulate were some of the same ones we gave those idiots last year to overthrow Gadaffi.

gsherin on September 21, 2012 at 9:30 AM

Now there is mounting evidence that the White House’s initial portrayal of the attacks as a mere outgrowth of protest was incorrect—or, at the very least, incomplete.

Incorrect? Noooooooo, I’m pretty sure it was a big old fat lie right from the start. There needs to be a few more big name R’s pointing that, and all the other lies out. Loudly, and often.

BettyRuth on September 21, 2012 at 9:31 AM

One has to wonder why the White House even attempted to lie about this.

blink on September 21, 2012 at 9:26 AM

Ever hear about the Liberal Media?

sentinelrules on September 21, 2012 at 9:32 AM

Yet, somehow Obama will still get votes. The USA has cancer, and it’s medical name is “liberaloma”.

AubieJon on September 21, 2012 at 9:26 AM

Yeah, it is bad when you get those Obamatomas all over your body..

Static21 on September 21, 2012 at 9:32 AM

The local news on the CBS/NY Times in Memphis was still pushing this garbage. I may fire off a letter to the News Director. Lib Lackeys.

kingsjester on September 21, 2012 at 9:32 AM

A smart operator surrounds himself with intelligent people. Odinga filled his cabinet with cronies, crooks and an assortment of over-educated, under-intelligent half-wits like Susan Rice.

LizardLips on September 21, 2012 at 9:32 AM

Some wondered why the White House sent a UN Ambassador — who had no direct connection to anything related to the story — out to sell the “protest spun out of control” message. Answer: Susan Rice is a lot more expendable than Hillary Clinton, who as Secretary of State should have been the one explaining the week’s events, not the UN Ambassador. Obama sent Rice out to be made a fool — and one has to wonder whether Rice volunteered for that assignment, or Hillary refused it.

And do these fools really think that if they make Rice the fall guy the majority of voters are going to say “OK” Obama has nothing to do with this? Seriously are they that stupid to think that this will work?… Yes they are…

mnjg on September 21, 2012 at 9:32 AM

That clip leaves out the prior conversation where you now have Jay Carney basically saying “Of course it was a terrorist attack. What are you, stupid?” They ripped him apart.

Marcus on September 21, 2012 at 9:24 AM

Dont suppose you have a link of some kind? I’m not used to watching the media jacknapes actually press Carney on anything, I’d love to see it.

Bishop on September 21, 2012 at 9:26 AM

The Fox News panel played the audio of Carney on an airplane with the press acting that way. They then went on with “can you believe this guy now?”

Marcus on September 21, 2012 at 9:32 AM

It will be interesting if, after all the screw-ups this administration has made on domestic matters and the effects that has made on the econony, that Obama ultimately loses because they badly handled security at the Libyan consulate and tried to go with a false narrative about the attack.

Bitter Clinger on September 21, 2012 at 9:33 AM

the questions it raises about the administration’s handling of consular security in an area known to be rife with Islamist militias and terrorists

Isn’t this like a naive animal lover who gets too close to wild animals and is mauled by a chimpanzee, gets their arm bit off by a polar bear, or is eaten by a lion? Their guiding principle is “the creature is well-meaning; it meant no harm”. The kind of world view and naivete that gets people killed. Wishing the kind of world Obama described in his 2009 Cairo speech, which is a fantasyland, a Utopia. Wishing doesn’t make it so. Let’s all live in peace in a world of brotherly love, and close our eyes to the realities of Islam. It’s appeasement.

Paul-Cincy on September 21, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Why does Susan Rice remind me of Colin Powell with his presentation about WMD before the run up to the Iraq War? Except there was much less truth in what Ambassador Rice had to say on the Sunday programs.

Paul-Cincy on September 21, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Cuz you’re racist. (sorry, I couldn’t resist)

BettyRuth on September 21, 2012 at 9:33 AM

One has to wonder why the White House even attempted to lie about this.

blink on September 21, 2012 at 9:26 AM

They’ve been lying for nearly 4 years and have gotten away with it for the most part. Even when called on their lies, they just shrug it off because they know the media will never follow up on any of it. The problem now is that not only are there dead Americans involved, but our national security policy is under the microscope. The drive-bys could overlook dead bodies with Fast & Furious, but now with the entire Middle East on fire.

Doughboy on September 21, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Yet, somehow Obama will still get votes. The USA has cancer, and it’s medical name is “liberaloma”. Democrat Public Schools.

AubieJon on September 21, 2012 at 9:26 AM

Fixed.

Del Dolemonte on September 21, 2012 at 9:34 AM

One has to wonder why the White House even attempted to lie about this.

blink on September 21, 2012 at 9:26 AM

Democrat Media Kneepads.

Del Dolemonte on September 21, 2012 at 9:35 AM

Every US administration has had a foreign policy failure or two, but I cannot recall any that lie and dissemble about them so shamelessly as the this one. Everyone involved from the President on down, no matter how small the slight, become almost pathologically defensive and lie about everything. These people are beyond imcompetent.

RobertE on September 21, 2012 at 9:35 AM

The WH is in quite a pickle today. In an absurd way, they must be hoping for significant turmoil throughout the Muslim world. Specifically, Muslim reaction to the French cartoons.
Such actions by the Muslims will SUPPORT the WH’s continuing narrative that insulting the Prophet is the cause of the unrest.
Lacking any activity against the French totally destroys the WH story telling.
Either that, or the WH’s looks totally incompetent vs the French in handling such a situation.
So far, at 9:45 AM EST, I only hear of problems in Pakistan regarding US interests.
Not looking good for Obama.

Jabberwock on September 21, 2012 at 9:35 AM

The great White House lie machine . . . doesn’t it make you proud. This country must be a joke to the rest of the world.

rplat on September 21, 2012 at 9:37 AM

On Sunday, the White House narrative on the assassination of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi was that they died in a protest that “spun out of control,” as UN Ambassador Susan Rice insisted on multiple talk shows.

Expiration date for what Rice said was Monday morning, so no they didn’t lie—at least not today.

dirtseller on September 21, 2012 at 9:38 AM

On the anniversary of 9/11, one would have expected the US to have anticipated an attack attempt and provided extra security for its diplomatic missions in Muslim nations, but especially Benghazi.

And our Libyan embassy is in Tripoli, not Benghazi. on Sept. 11, our ambassador should be secured behind the embassy walls, especially in Libya. What the hell was he doing, with a minimal security detail, protected by a Libyan militia that was at least compromised, in an area known to be infested with AQ types, on Sept. 11?

rbj on September 21, 2012 at 9:39 AM

Romney/Ryan need to keep the pressure up on this. Obama needs to be beat over the head about what transpired before and after the attack. And, what was the Ambassador and the three others actually doing in Benghazi with virtually no security detail. This needs to be explored further..

Static21 on September 21, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Notice how those brave caring Libyans who Clinton and Obama claimed lovingly took the ambassador to the hospital have never emerged and the lie was never repeated after more and more video make it clear that it wasn’t that clean a story? Why haven’t the autopsy results been released? Where was the security detail? Why did Clinton/Obama/Rice/Carney mis-represent the status of the two SEALs who died? With prior knowledge what was the ambassador doing in Benghazi (a known AQ stronghold) on 9/11 anyway?

We know little about this incident and even less when you filter out the known lies or discrepancies that have come from this administration.

Happy Nomad on September 21, 2012 at 9:39 AM

One has to wonder why the White House even attempted to lie about this.

blink on September 21, 2012 at 9:26 AM

Because at least 50% of the US public is too stupid to know or think otherwise…

PatriotRider on September 21, 2012 at 9:40 AM

They thought they could get away with this. The legacy media has be so compliant they thought no one would have the audacity to question them. Who’s going to be the next one on Sunday talk shows..?

d1carter on September 21, 2012 at 9:41 AM

Fixed.

Del Dolemonte on September 21, 2012 at 9:34 AM

There are too many liberalinogens to name, but the public education system is the gateway to Liberaloma.

AubieJon on September 21, 2012 at 9:41 AM

One has to wonder why there have been no Muslim demonstrations in the US using this film as a pretext.

Is that a dag that should be barking? Or was it told to shush?

Akzed on September 21, 2012 at 9:41 AM

Sorry, my 9:35 AM post should be EDT not EST.

Jabberwock on September 21, 2012 at 9:41 AM

This might explain the rush to blame the entire mess on a weeks-old YouTube video.

That’s what the pentagon did.

VorDaj on September 21, 2012 at 9:41 AM

Wow…
……..you mean that Obama’s go to girl on Foreign Policy Mrs. Rice….the same Rice that was instrumental in refusing to take Bin Laden when the Sudan offered him up on a silver platter…..
………….has no idea what she is talking about beyond spouting butt covering democratic talking points…..

…….surprised I tell ‘ya….totally surprised!

Baxter Greene on September 21, 2012 at 9:43 AM

The local news on the CBS/NY Times in Memphis was still pushing this garbage. I may fire off a letter to the News Director. Lib Lackeys.

kingsjester on September 21, 2012 at 9:32 AM

.
At least they’re talking about it, In my area its not even page 6 worthy -its as if it never happened. Move along people.
And just like Fast/Furious- 5 in 10 on the street never heard of it here, and as far as Issa’s report goes—-fuhgettaboutit…

Omission Censorship. Alive and well.

FlaMurph on September 21, 2012 at 9:43 AM

It will be interesting if, after all the screw-ups this administration has made on domestic matters and the effects that has made on the econony, that Obama ultimately loses because they badly handled security at the Libyan consulate and tried to go with a false narrative about the attack.

Bitter Clinger on September 21, 2012 at 9:33 AM

The cover-up is often worse than the crime (or lapse). I don’t think this is a game changer for the election but the clear way in which the administration has been discredited over their handling of the incident doesn’t help. IMO, somebody will have to get under the bus for this one and it will happen very quickly.

Happy Nomad on September 21, 2012 at 9:44 AM

The Daily Beast’s Eli Lake looks at the collapse of the Obama narrative on the attack, and the questions it raises about the administration’s handling of consular security in an area known to be rife with Islamist militias and terrorists:

well, their interpretation of the events is clouded by their worldview. Their view is that the Islamofascist world ought to love them, agree with them and subsequently NOT attack them. No wonder they had brushed it off, they were already lying to themselves while AMB Stevens was still walking the earth.

ted c on September 21, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Don’t expect Obama to take ownership of this narrative collapse.

He will no more take responsibility for this than our “Great Islamic Society Nation Building”/”Holy Qur’an” Army and Marine generals will take responsibility for the collapse of their deadly to America troops insanity in Afcrapistan.

VorDaj on September 21, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Because they are afraid that the weapons used to attack the consulate were some of the same ones we gave those idiots last year to overthrow Gadaffi.

gsherin on September 21, 2012 at 9:30 AM

Bingo, and my bet that the reason they were there in the first place was to “negotiate” a return of some of the weapons the U.S. put in their hands.

petefrt on September 21, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Great analysis, Ed. The deliberately let this happen, the filthy traitorous bastards. Just saw some live film from Pock-ee-ston, teeming with violent mobs of radical Islamic protesters. I guess they haven’t caught Hillary’s hostage video yet.

Naturally Curly on September 21, 2012 at 9:45 AM

September 11th, 2001: The sovereign territory of the United States is attacked. The President: Soon the whole world will hear us!

September 11th, 2012: The sovereign territory of the United States is attacked. The President: We’re sorry. It’s our fault.

Nuff said.

Trafalgar on September 21, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Sorry for the OT, but family in my home town are beginning to realize some of the ‘joys’ of the ACA.
Pretty much freaking out.
And so it begins … http://www.thetimesherald.com/article/20120921/NEWS01/309210008?fb_comment_id=fbc_470943652928805_5348376_470985479591289

pambi on September 21, 2012 at 9:45 AM

One has to wonder why the White House even attempted to lie about this.

blink on September 21, 2012 at 9:26 AM

This is why….

Study: Only 15 percent of Democrats believe economic news is bad

…democrats depend on the delusional and uniformed.

Baxter Greene on September 21, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Drew at AOSHQ links to details in an article by Robert Caruso…It’s blistering :

” How is this acceptable thinking? How can people who think this way be left in charge to devise the next plan? No wonder we were caught flatfooted.

Notable for what’s not in this story? Any mention of a protest that either got out of hand or that the terrorists used as cover for their attack. Quite the opposite in fact.

Ethan Chorin, an American development economist working with U.S. and Libyan officials on a hospital in Benghazi, said he spoke by phone to Mr. Stevens about an hour before the assault, and the ambassador told him there was “no indication of trouble” following the protests in Egypt. Mr. Chorin said a subsequent conversation he had with the ambassador’s security officer was cut short by what the officer said was a serious problem. Several minutes later, he could hear explosions from his hotel room across town as the assault began.

So there was no “trouble” at the Consulate an hour before the attack but we’re to believe one sprang up and then from that sprang a complex and heavily armed attack?

From the changing stories about the bin Laden raid to the “leaks” over our efforts against Iran to Benghazi, this administration simply can not be trusted to tell the truth about national security…”

http://ace.mu.nu/

workingclass artist on September 21, 2012 at 9:45 AM

well, their interpretation of the events is clouded by their worldview. Their view is that the Islamofascist world ought to love them, agree with them and subsequently NOT attack them. No wonder they had brushed it off, they were already lying to themselves while AMB Stevens was still walking the earth.

ted c on September 21, 2012 at 9:44 AM

This is basically the view of America’s current gaggle of Army and Marine generals, although they think they must grovel to Islam and the Koran and Muslim Rage Boys more.

VorDaj on September 21, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Don’t expect Obama to take ownership of this narrative collapse.

Why would he need to when it was cleary Romney’s fault for jumping the gun with his rogue controversial statement.

Gatsu on September 21, 2012 at 9:49 AM

September 11th, 2001: The sovereign territory of the United States is attacked. The President: Soon the whole world will hear us!

Trafalgar on September 21, 2012 at 9:45 AM

And what the world heard was Bush proceeded to babble on about Islam being a Greta Religion of Peace.

VorDaj on September 21, 2012 at 9:50 AM

I’m thinking this is good stuff for Paul Ryan to bring up in the VP/foreign policy debate. This administration is more concerned about their own skin than ANYTHING else including a murdered Ambassador they knew and respected. What does that say about them? They can’t say they have kept America safe anymore. Our Ambassador is dead and it all happened on the 11th anniversary of 9/11. They didn’t have decent protection for him. They failed. And their first instinct is to blame Freedom of Speech. How un American. What a pathetic disgrace. I’m sure after the bounce Billy Jeff got Obama he had to protect Hillary and throw Rice under the bus.

magicbeans on September 21, 2012 at 9:50 AM

One has to wonder why the White House even attempted to lie about this.

blink on September 21, 2012 at 9:26 AM

I’d say the bigger question is if the White House ever thought of some plan other than burying the truth about this. If so, it would be the first time . . . ever in this White House?

johnny alpha on September 21, 2012 at 9:51 AM

White House narrative on Libya all but collapsed

…and of course the MSM will hold someone accountable?

KOOLAID2 on September 21, 2012 at 9:51 AM

White House narrative on Libya all but collapsed

…and of course the MSM will hold someone accountable?

KOOLAID2 on September 21, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Yes, Mitt Romney.

What are you, a homophobe?

Bishop on September 21, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Lets see the media at ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC and NPR take into these people the way they would if it was George Bush, who wouldn’t have done this because he could call terrorist by their name, and didn’t consider the embassy murders to be man caused disasters.

Fleuries on September 21, 2012 at 9:54 AM

kingsjester on September 21, 2012 at 9:32 AM

.

whoa.
just saw your 6:46am post on the other thread.
Neither of us lives near NYC.
That’s freaky.

FlaMurph on September 21, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Islam brings hope and comfort to millions of people in my country, and to more than a billion people worldwide. Ramadan is also an occasion to remember that Islam gave birth to a rich civilization of learning that has benefited mankind. Islam is a faith that brings comfort to people. It inspires them to lead lives based on honesty, and justice, and compassion. Islam is a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world. It’s a faith that has made brothers and sisters of every race. It’s a faith based upon love, not hate. Mohammad’s word has guided billions of believers across the centuries, and those believers built a culture of learning and literature and science. All the world continues to benefit from this faith and its achievements. The Islam that we know is a faith devoted to the worship of one God, as revealed through The Holy Qur’an. It teaches the value and the importance of charity, mercy, and peace.

George W. Bush !!!

VorDaj on September 21, 2012 at 9:55 AM

From the changing stories about the bin Laden raid to the “leaks” over our efforts against Iran to Benghazi, this administration simply can not be trusted to tell the truth about national security…”
http://ace.mu.nu/
workingclass artist on September 21, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Remember the photo in the WH situation room where everyone was looking all concerned and all supposedly at video of the raid on bin Laden’s hovel?

Remember that the raid itself was not transmitted due to a 25 minute blackout? Nevertheless we still got this picture of an oh-so concerned WH situation room.

Has anyone ever explained what everyone was so looking so concerned about?

Akzed on September 21, 2012 at 9:56 AM

One of this country’s greatest mistakes in 2008 was assuming progressive liberalism wouldn’t leave a lasting effect on a still center-right nation. In this belief that Hope and Change was to become our saving grace for economic independence, prosperity, and a government that could live within its means, nothing could be further from our reach, under this current administration. Capitalist understand the principle of “cutting one’s losses” when an investment becomes un-profitable. The same is true when evaluating our current President—an obvious poor investment—where a social experiment has left this nation in financial peril that may not be recoverable.

It is my opinion/advice that even the liberal media should consider “cutting its losses” in the investment of Barack Obama, before they also lose what little credibility they have left. Covering up the disastrous events that took place in Benghazi, (a murderous planned terrorist attack), by publishing the White House narrative, (now outright lies) that a 14 minute video was the cause of this tragic loss of American Patriots, is one of the single most embarrassing exploits EVER ATTEMPTED by this media. In this act alone, they should be admonished and scorned for printing these fallacies. There is no excuse for this shameless act in the name of journalism…….or protecting an unworthy investment.

Rovin on September 21, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Obama sent Rice out to be made a fool — and one has to wonder whether Rice volunteered for that assignment, or Hillary refused it.

War on Wimminses

ted c on September 21, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Obama sent Rice out to be made a fool — and one has to wonder whether Rice volunteered for that assignment, or Hillary refused it.

Hillary said no. Bill could always start “slipping up” again by praising Romney’s stellar buisness career.

forest on September 21, 2012 at 9:58 AM

A U.S. Ambassador was brutally murdered, no one in the White House wants to take any responsibility for this, the issue is virtually ignored by the major networks, and every single damned day, I see Yahoo report Obama leading in the polls!

It adds all new meaning to the term “WTF?!!!!”

pilamaye on September 21, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Why does Susan Rice remind me of Colin Powell with his presentation about WMD before the run up to the Iraq War? Except there was much less truth in what Ambassador Rice had to say on the Sunday programs.

Paul-Cincy on September 21, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Cuz you’re racist. (sorry, I couldn’t resist)

BettyRuth on September 21, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Then you should love my post analogizing Muslims to wild animals.

/doubled down on the racism, Eleventy!11!!!!111!!!!

Paul-Cincy on September 21, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Now there is mounting evidence that the White House’s initial portrayal of the attacks as a mere outgrowth of protest was incorrect—or, at the very least, incomplete.

Ah yes Mr. Incomplete President strikes again.

jbh45 on September 21, 2012 at 10:00 AM

It’s pretty bad when France – France, of all countries – has more of a spine than the U.S. to tell the protestors to pound sand.

http://af.reuters.com/article/tunisiaNews/idAFL5E8KL5T620120921

France confirmed on Friday it would allow no street protests against cartoons denigrating Islam’s Prophet Mohammad that were published by a French magazine this week.

Interior Minister Manuel Valls said prefects throughout the country had orders to prohibit any protest over the issue and crack down if the ban was challenged.

“There will be strictly no exceptions. Demonstrations will be banned and broken up,” he said.

Although the message is kind of muddled. Free speech allows the cartoons to be published. But not to allow protests against them.

Mitoch55 on September 21, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Rovin on September 21, 2012 at 9:57 AM

There are no “Journalists” left in the MSM. They are all sycophants of this Administration.

Even Tapper has been known to hold back.

kingsjester on September 21, 2012 at 10:00 AM

We need a new book published.One like Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right,with a small adjustment in the title.

docflash on September 21, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Study: Only 15 percent of Democrats believe economic news is bad

…democrats depend on the delusional and uniformed.

Baxter Greene on September 21, 2012 at 9:45 AM

.
Its called Omission Censorship.
In most cases the media does not allow them to see the truth.

Thats why they invented their cockamamey “Fact Checking” –because the new media is starting to get the truth out to these people.

FlaMurph on September 21, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Who is Al-Qaeda anyway ? Seriously, I don’t really know. It’s state sponsored terrorism, but who is/are the sponsor(s) ?

williampeck1958 on September 21, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Don’t expect Obama to take ownership of this narrative collapse.

Does El Presidente Downgrade EVER take ownership of such things?

That would be showing leadership and acting ‘Presidential’ – we know he loathes doing that.

Chip on September 21, 2012 at 10:02 AM

It’s pretty bad when France – France, of all countries – has more of a spine than the U.S. to tell the protestors to pound sand.

Mitoch55 on September 21, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Our generals at the pentagon will probably order punitive air strikes against them for disrespecting the Koran, or as David Petraeus calls it, “The Holy Qur’an”.

VorDaj on September 21, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Of course, the purpose of the “panel” commissioned by Hillary to look into this is to delay any findings until after the election. (Duh.) Which, coincidentally will also be after the next SoS is appointed.

Hillary knows 2016 is no longer a possibility. Colossal failure from within her State Department that led to 4 deaths on “US soil” from a terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11. Way too much to overcome.

That Americans have yet to conclude the same for Obama and 2012, is astounding. He should crater in the polls.

BKeyser on September 21, 2012 at 10:04 AM

pambi on September 21, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Thanks for that link! ACA sure is a great concept–right up to the point that you actually might get sick or need treatment.

johnny alpha on September 21, 2012 at 10:05 AM

A word to rioting Muslims

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GCXHPKhRCVg

redguy on September 21, 2012 at 10:06 AM

This thing is starting to smell like a “Wag the Dog” setup.

0bama’s not going to win reelection unless he cheats or some international crisis comes out of the woodwork to give him the opportunity to come in on a white horse and save the day.

So, he very quietly pulls security out of a US installation in a decidedly volatile part of the Middle East.

Al Qaeda jumps the walls and has a field day. US ambassador gets killed. OOPS! This wasn’t part of the plan! (Or was it?)

0bama, true to form, looks for someone else to throw under the bus.

You would think he would have learned with Fast and Furious.

CurtZHP on September 21, 2012 at 10:06 AM

This might explain the rush to blame the entire mess on a weeks-old YouTube video. Thanks to that rush to judgment, the White House was able to initially deflect criticism of its security failure to the filmmakers — and claim that its Middle East policy wasn’t to blame for the assassination and the other riots.

And lets not forget the other part of the smoke screen was to blame Mitt immediately for his ‘shoot first, aim later’ approach. Obama knew at that point what kind of trouble he was in with Benghazi and was only too happy to deflect onto Mitt.

dont taze me bro on September 21, 2012 at 10:07 AM

One has to wonder why the White House even attempted to lie about this.

blink on September 21, 2012 at 9:26 AM

I’d say the bigger question is if the White House ever thought of some plan other than burying the truth about this. If so, it would be the first time . . . ever in this White House?

johnny alpha on September 21, 2012 at 9:51 AM

This is Hillary’s thing, and she, Obama, and Bill Clinton are the trifecta of liars. World class liars. I don’t understand their relationship to Truth, but I know truth doesn’t excite them. I guess for them it’s an inconvenience in their paths to glory.

Paul-Cincy on September 21, 2012 at 10:07 AM

CurtZHP on September 21, 2012 at 10:06 AM

The only thing wrong with your theory is the fact that Obama’s narrative is that there is no such thing as terrorism because of his “open hand” groveling to the animals who adhere themselves to the so-called religion of peace. The Fort Hood shooting is still classified as “workplace violence.” The last thing rat-ears needed heading into the election is a terrorist attack where it is clear that security was non-existent.

Happy Nomad on September 21, 2012 at 10:12 AM

And lets not forget the other part of the smoke screen was to blame Mitt immediately for his ‘shoot first, aim later’ approach. Obama knew at that point what kind of trouble he was in with Benghazi and was only too happy to deflect onto Mitt.

dont taze me bro on September 21, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Wow. I wonder if there was some projection going on, which is one of Obama’s primary methods. Projection can be a great defense. “I know you are but what am I?”. It’s a preemptive defense. “That Mitt Romney, he really jumps the gun”. But, wait, isn’t that what you just did? The charge loses its sting the second time around. You’re inured to it.

Paul-Cincy on September 21, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Obama sent Rice out to be made a fool —

and she did it so well too…one would think she has experience at it.

and one has to wonder whether Rice volunteered for that assignment, or Hillary refused it.

Door #2. Our SoS needs some big time cover on this…and Bill is the reason she’ll get it.

lynncgb on September 21, 2012 at 10:15 AM

No worries. They know the media will absolutely NEVER call them on it. I hope when Obama goes down he takes the whole stinkin’ lot with him! Unfortunately too many people still believe the “video did it” garbage!!

tims472 on September 21, 2012 at 10:20 AM

Rovin on September 21, 2012 at 9:57 AM

There are no “Journalists” left in the MSM. They are all sycophants Fluffers of this Administration.

Even Tapper has been known to hold back.

kingsjester on September 21, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Fixed.

Del Dolemonte on September 21, 2012 at 10:20 AM

Islamists rise across North Africa from Mali to Egypt
- Charles Krauthammer

also, Eurpope, Austrailia, and the good geriatric USA.

williampeck1958 on September 21, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Who is Al-Qaeda anyway ? Seriously, I don’t really know. It’s state sponsored terrorism, but who is/are the sponsor(s) ?

williampeck1958 on September 21, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Al Qaeda? Don’t worry about Al Qaeda, they’re done with, finished, defeated. Obama did it. He told us so.

“And while two – a new tower rises on the New York skyline, al Qaeda is on its way to defeat and Osama bin Laden is dead,” – Barack Obama, Sept. 13th, 2012

“The goal that I set — to defeat al-Qaeda, and deny it a chance to rebuild — is within reach.” – Barack Obama, May 1st, 2012

“Osama bin Laden will never threaten America again, and al Qaeda is on the road to defeat.” – Barack Obama, July 24th, 2012

Trafalgar on September 21, 2012 at 10:22 AM

Because they are afraid that the weapons used to attack the consulate were some of the same ones we gave those idiots last year to overthrow Gadaffi.

gsherin on September 21, 2012 at 9:30 AM

Bingo, and my bet that the reason they were there in the first place was to “negotiate” a return of some of the weapons the U.S. put in their hands.

petefrt on September 21, 2012 at 9:45 AM

I read that the SEALs that were there (not for security) were there to track down those weapons. Sorry, I don’t have a link, but will post if I can find the article again.

sandspur on September 21, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Dont suppose you have a link of some kind? I’m not used to watching the media jacknapes actually press Carney on anything, I’d love to see it.

Bishop on September 21, 2012 at 9:26 AM
The Fox News panel played the audio of Carney on an airplane with the press acting that way. They then went on with “can you believe this guy now?”

Marcus on September 21, 2012 at 9:32 AM

This may be the clip you saw:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1852124060001/white-house-finally-calls-libya-attack-terrorism/?playlist_id=86858

bluefox on September 21, 2012 at 10:26 AM

I read that the SEALs that were there (not for security) were there to track down those weapons. Sorry, I don’t have a link, but will post if I can find the article again.

sandspur on September 21, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Bingo! The key word is former Navy SEALs. They were CIA operatives.

Trafalgar on September 21, 2012 at 10:26 AM

In the wake of the Aurora, CO, theater massacre, Progs told us that the problem was not the movie, but the delivery system, i.e., guns; therefore, we should have more gun control laws to protect people from lunatics like James Holmes. In the aftermath of the attacks in Cairo and Benghazi, Progs have told us that the problem was speech, i.e., an admittedly blasphemous (if you are a Muslim), but otherwise amateurish movie, not the delivery system, i.e., radical Islam or even the internet.

Why? Is it because speech is fine for Hollywood and Progs want more gun control so using the actions of a gun-wielding Joker to further their aims is a win-win? Yes.

But, when a Coptic Christian insults the “Prophet Mohammed” (and the administration falsely accuses the filmmaker of being the proximate cause), why do Progs not stand up for his free speech and attack the delivery system (if one were to believe that the youtube video thought it were, indeed, the cause), which is radical Islam and/or the internet?

Can it be that neither, of course, would further their interests of 1) believing that radical Islam is not a threat; 2) blaming the West’s “imperialism, colonialism and oppression of third world peoples;” 3) moral relativism (Al religions are equal. If both Mormonism and Islam were criticised in a magazine, would your rather wake up in Provo or Peshawar?); 4) undermining and destablising Western capitalism; and, 5) the enemy of my enemy is my friend? Absolutely.

Is it cowardice, hypocrisy, and evidence of their double standards and openness to “suppressive tolerance”? Definitely.

Resist We Much on September 21, 2012 at 10:30 AM

It’s a preemptive defense. “That Mitt Romney, he really jumps the gun”. But, wait, isn’t that what you just did? The charge loses its sting the second time around. You’re inured to it.

Paul-Cincy on September 21, 2012 at 10:13 AM

And the fact that the lap dog media isn’t going to challenge O’s deflection anyway sort of works in his favor as well. To say the least.

dont taze me bro on September 21, 2012 at 10:30 AM

dont taze me bro on September 21, 2012 at 10:30 AM

That was too week: Not merely that the media won’t challenge him, but that they will carry his water by running full speed with the Mitt ‘shoot first, aim later’ narrative.

dont taze me bro on September 21, 2012 at 10:32 AM

(Hillary Clinton announced on Thursday that she was putting together a panel to look into the incident.)

The ONLY thing that’s “clear” is that the OBama Admin. is playing the world for fools — well, everyone except the Nation of Islam.

Looking and looking and looking and, well, more looking for “reasons” and “explanations” and “more information” by “ongoing investigation” is idiot-language for “not doing anything about anything because (election, money needs, security exploits in the works, subterfuge, whatever, name it here).”

I’m sure HIllary and Rice are literally exhausted from “ongoing investigation”. Exhausted, working hard.

Lourdes on September 21, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Excerpt:

…For the sheep’s clothing has been removed and we see the wolf for what he is…..

The wolf plays a prominent role in socialist thought. V.I. Lenin once said “When you live among wolves you must howl like a wolf,” meaning, of course, that if political necessity requires you to act like a capitalist or live among capitalists while you organize and work for socialist causes, you must act like those among whom you live. This is simply a matter of expediency. Norman Thomas, a founder of the A.C.L.U. once said:

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”

There is a stained glass window (see above [link]) currently on display in the London School of Economics. Designed by George Bernard Shaw to commemorate the founding of the Society, the “Fabian Window” features Society members hammering the world in order, as the motto proclaims, to “REMOULD IT NEARER TO THE HEART’S DESIRE.” [sic]. A close and politically astute friend of mine—and leading expert on socialism—exclaimed: “How brazen are the socialists!” When I asked why, he pointed to the image of the wolf dressed in a sheepskin displayed prominently on the Fabian Window—a stark and ostentatious reminder that the goal of the socialists is to work secretly, in disguise (just as Lenin counseled) and adapt to the flock, herd, or society in which you are moving and working. Put simply, if you read and study socialist thought, the message is very clear: work to remould the world to your heart’s desire and work for socialist causes discreetly—in disguise—and adapting to whatever milieu in which you are working. This, of course, begs the question: “Whose heart desires to remould the world and how? Depending on who has the hammer—we may or may not like the change.

Obama looks good. He is (as Biden once said during the 2008 primaries) “intelligent and articulate.” He wears nice suits. He has wonderful stage presence and he is a rock star. And people still have no idea who he is, where he came from, who influenced him or what his plans are if he—the most inexperienced politician ever to come out of nowhere—is re-elected president. Influenced by Uncle Frank Marshall Davis (a communist organizer in Hawaii who was no fan of racial equality and whose agenda was only to promote racial and class struggle), Billy Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn—two unapologetic American terrorists who went underground for years to foster terrorism and support our enemies right here in our own country, a radical black liberation “minister” and others, Obama has an agenda. And, the change of which he speaks may well not be what most Americans think, or want…

Lourdes on September 21, 2012 at 10:37 AM

If I were Amb Rice, I’d be livid. Looks like she was sent out as pointman to spew the Benghazi spin, while everyone in the Obozo administration hid in the weeds.

I’m sure that she didn’t call up all those Sunday news shows on her own, so whose idea was it to expose her like this? She now is seen as an out of touch fool. I’d be livid.

WestTexasBirdDog on September 21, 2012 at 10:38 AM

A word to rioting Muslims
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GCXHPKhRCVg

redguy on September 21, 2012 at 10:06 AM

I thought you were going with this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymLJz3N8ayI

VegasRick on September 21, 2012 at 10:40 AM

He’s parroting the enemy’s propaganda, the upshot of which is to restrict speech rights. Once he committed to that, there was no going back regardless of what anyone else says, even admin spokesmen.

He’s running ads on Poheestohn TV stipulating to this myth!

He’ll hang onto this narrative like OJ.

Akzed on September 21, 2012 at 9:25 AM

He’s (Obama is) parroting the enemy’s propaganda, the upshot of which is to restrict speech rights.

EXACTLY RIGHT.

Lourdes on September 21, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Comment pages: 1 2