May 05 2013

Why The Benahzi Coverup? What Caused Obama Administration To Panic?

Published by at 12:31 pm under All General Discussions,Obama's War In Libya

Final, Final Update: Hillary is now deep in the middle of this scandal. One of the biggest scandals in recent memory, since neither Watergate nor Monica-gate included 4 dead Americans.

Final Update: While there are many important updates at the end, I did not want this one to get lost:

We know that the State Department inspector general is investigating the Accountability Review Board. It is unclear whether there is overlap between the whistleblowers and the IG’s investigation. Again, if we learn witnesses were suppressed or accounts changed for political reasons, even the mainstream media might have to change its story.

If this was known to our intelligence community shortly after the attack, there is further reason to question why administration officials were perpetuating the notion that this was a spontaneous attack prompted by an anti-Muslim video.

In my own reporting, I’ve pointed to instances in which the State Department refused to repeat the false narrative coming from the White House, especially in the days after the attack. On Oct. 9 in a background briefing coming from State, the national media first got an accurate inkling of the chain of events. Others have reported that the role of Islamic terrorists was known by the intelligence community almost immediately.

So who does that leave as the instigator of a false narrative and effort to downplay the entire incident in the weeks before the 2012 election?

Yes indeed, what does this leave? - end update

From day one of the Benghazi 9-11 anniversary attack that killed our Ambassador and 3 of his protectors, I have wondered what the hell was so politically bad about the attack that caused the administration to fabricate the lie that it was the outgrowth of Egyptian protests, 100’s of miles away. An accident of coincidence, that just happened to be the first time al Qaeda (or their sympathizers) were able to pull off an anniversary attack on 9/11/12.

Here’s my conundrum.  Attacks on American interests always result in the public rallying to the President. Those who ply the trade-craft of Saul Alinsky should have seen the attack as a political gold mine for the liberal, wimpy Barack Obama. One of the elements of the 9-11 Truther conspiracy theory is how Bush and Cheney were behind 9-11 to gain control over the levers of government. 9-11 did provide political capitol and room to address the threats, so that part of the theory is accurate. But it is based on the long standing result Americans rally together when attacked.. So what was it about the Benghazi attacks that caused this administration to go into full coverup instead?

This week we will find out more about what was covered up, but I am not sure we will find out why it was initiated. One thing is for sure, Team Obama’s cover story was a poor work of fiction – clearly created in the haste of panic.

For example there were no protests outside the embassy prior to the attack, according to a Democrat member of Congress:

“There were no protests outside the Benghazi compound there. This was a deliberate and strategic attack on the consulate there,” said the Democratic congressman.

“It was false information. There’s no excuse for that.”

UPDATE: Here’s the relevant transcript:

Lynch: “They certainly weren’t accurate. I don’t know what the process was there. But, absolutely, they were false. They were wrong. There were no protests outside of the Benghazi compound there. This was a deliberate and strategic attack on the consulate there. So any statements that this was sort of like the other protests that we saw in Cairo and other embassies- this was not that type of case. This was a concerted effort. ”

And I can understand why he came to that conclusion, given what we are seeing come out:

As intelligence officials pieced together the puzzle of events unfolding in Libya, they concluded even before the assaults had ended that al Qaeda-linked terrorists were involved. Senior administration officials, however, sought to obscure the emerging picture and downplay the significance of attacks that killed a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans. The frantic process that produced the changes to the talking points took place over a 24-hour period just one day before Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, made her now-famous appearances on the Sunday television talk shows. The discussions involved senior officials from the State Department, the National Security Council, the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the White House.

CBS is also reporting that the cover up was deliberate, rushed and a complete fiction:

“I think everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning,” Greg Hicks, a 22-year foreign service diplomat who was the highest-ranking U.S. official in Libya after the strike, told investigators under authority of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Hicks, the former U.S. Embassy Tripoli deputy chief of mission, was not in Benghazi at the time of the attack, which killed Chris Stevens – then the U.S. ambassador to Libya – and three other Americans.

“For there to have been a demonstration on Chris Stevens’s front door and him not to have reported it is unbelievable,” he said. “I never reported a demonstration; I reported an attack on the consulate. Chris – Chris’s last report, if you want to say his final report – is, ‘Greg, we are under attack.’

“…I’ve never been as embarrassed in my life, in my career, as on that day,” Hicks continued in his interview with investigators. “The net impact of what has transpired is, [Rice,] the spokesperson of the most powerful country in the world, has basically said that the president of Libya is either a liar of doesn’t know what he’s talking about. ….My jaw hit the floor as I watched this.”

I wonder how all those administration media puppets feel about being duped like this? They were played and their trust abused.

Going back to the second link to the Weekly Standard article, we get a glimpse into how those inside the DC political power bubble cover up for each other. There was no priority to understand how our Ambassador was killed, there was just the typical power playing around. A bunch of Nero’s fiddling as the world burns around us.

The White House provided the emails to members of the House and Senate intelligence committees for a limited time and with the stipulation that the documents were available for review only and would not be turned over to the committees. The White House and committee leadership agreed to that arrangement as part of a deal that would keep Republican senators from blocking the confirmation of John Brennan, the president’s choice to run the CIA.

Sickening.  This is why we need to clean house in DC and get the Federal Government back into its limited box as outlined in our Constitution.

To the terrorists who knew better about what happened in Libya than anyone else, these administration lies were a green light to escalate. Nothing could have made them happier than to have Team Obama try and hide what happened. The stink of panic must have been exhilarating. And the result of that misstep is playing out today in Syria.  As I wrote a while back, the obvious response from al Qaeda and their ilk is “full speed ahead” – there is a wimp in the White House. Here’s what I wrote November 26, 2012:

The 9-11 Terrorist attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya – which resulted in the murder of our Ambassador and the death of some of his security attachment – are the roots of the unrest we now see in the Palestinian areas surrounding Israel, in Syria and in Egypt. And expect this unrest to expand since the Islamo-Fascist smell blood in this incompetent administration.

Only an incompetent administration not only fails to beef up security at this exposed and previously attacked location, they actually reduce security leading to 9-11. That is a sign of criminal ignorance in my opinion, since the result was 4 dead Americans. It was an avoidable result running up to 9-11. It was an avoidable result during the attack, as nearby forces were told to stand down and not intervene. As we learn more, the missteps and mistakes are stunning.

The cover up afterwards was nothing more than a desperate attempt to hold onto power prior to national elections. It is obvious that Obama political appointees wrote over (and therefore attempted to hide) the  after-action assessment of career warriors who have spent years focused on defending this nation and its people, at home and abroad.

So this leads any half-wit, Islamo-Fascist in Iran, Syria, Egypt, Libya or Palestine to realize Israel and the other centrist nations (Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, Iraq) are vulnerable. If all this White House will do is throw top generals under the bus when attacked, then obviously they have 4 years to take action and try and gain ground.

Sadly, this is one of those times I was dead on accurate in predicting not only what had happened behind the scenes of government, but how these actions would play out on the world stage. This is why you cannot lower your standards too far when electing leaders. And this is why this week’s hearing really are a big deal. Finally, from the CBS article linked above:

Issa said his committee’s hearing this week will try to get to the heart of why “the talking points were right, and then the talking points were wrong.” Though he said it might be “in part” a cover-up effort in light of the State Department having turned down requests from diplomats on the ground for heightened security, “it does seem like it’s bigger than that.”

Yeah, it does. Covering up the fact security was reduced at an exposed consulate would seem to be easy to paper over for this crowd. So what was it that caused the panic in the White House?

Update: Some Damning Reporting from the Weekly Standard, as we find the initial internal reporting on the attack was accurate, and nothing like the BS that was being spread by Susan Rice:

The CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis prepared the first draft of a response to the congressman, which was distributed internally for comment at 11:15 a.m. on Friday, September 14 (Version 1 at right). This initial CIA draft included the assertion that the U.S. government “know[s] that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack.” That draft also noted that press reports “linked the attack to Ansar al Sharia. The group has since released a statement that its leadership did not order the attacks, but did not deny that some of its members were involved.” Ansar al Sharia, the CIA draft continued, aims to spread sharia law in Libya and “emphasizes the need for jihad.” The agency draft also raised the prospect that the facilities had been the subject of jihadist surveillance and offered a reminder that in the previous six months there had been “at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy.”

That was probably the paragraph that sent the Political players into a tizzy.  They probably thought Obama could not win election and tell the truth about what happened. So they lied.  And in this case, these lies are not about interns and office play, they are about the deaths of Americans.

2nd Update: Want to add the “Face The Nation” video clip. It is very powerful, and asks the same question as my post:

More here and here

Update 3: Wild conspiracy theory now not so wild…

Was this why the WH panicked?

9 responses so far

9 Responses to “Why The Benahzi Coverup? What Caused Obama Administration To Panic?”

  1. gwood says:

    I too believe that the cover-up was designed to obscure something far more important than jeopardizing a pre-election boast.

    The general consensus for an alternative explanation seems to be that Obama was attempting to funnel weapons to Syrian rebels through Turkey. I’m not sure that’s it either.

    Whatever it was, it was something that succeeded in getting Hillary on board, and perhaps even Petraeus.

    So what would all three of them agree on that would be so important, such that they would risk all to accomplish their goal?

    What if these weapons were to end up in the hands of Iranian rebels, not Syrian? Would it not follow then, if true, that the Ayatollahs got wind of the plot and thus the ambassador had to be executed before the plan could be carried out? If this is true it would be yet another big black mark on the Obama resume.

    Rest assured, this administration’s penchant for “dialogue” has had them in contact with dissident factions within Iran. These factions would only be contacted through proxies, perhaps that’s the Turkey connection. The Ayatollahs and Achmadinejad are putting up a good front, but their economy is in shambles, and those who oppose them out number those who support them. Iran’s government now has a very tenuous hold on power, and is ripe for plucking. The dissidents could become powerful adversaries, fairly over night, with US weaponry.

    It’s not hard to fathom that Obama and Hillary would tell lies. General Petraeus is a different story. I can think of no other reason why Petraeus would be on board, and why he would lie, under oath, to protect the mission they were on, unless it would be something that would have had as its goal the sacking of the Ayatollahs in Iran.

  2. dbostan says:

    The cover-up either is about a botched kidnapping of our ambassador, to be later swapped with the blind sheikh, with Obama’s tacit approval, or it is a blow-back from the russian/iranians, for Obama’s illegal arms transfers to Syria via Turkey.
    Either way, it is treason and an impeachable offense.

  3. Frogg1 says:

    I find it curious that virtually all Democrats on today’s Sunday talk shows outed the talking points right after Benghazi as knowingly false. Is this the first time any Democrat has said such a thing? I also find it curious that in no version of the talking point drafts is there a mention of the youtube video Susan Rice spent all her time talking about. Where did that false and creative addition come from? Don’t forget, it wasn’t just Susan Rice saying it……..top officials of the Administration played along with it even to the point of telling the families of the four who died that “justice would be brought to that film maker”…..and, even to the point that Hillary Clinton did a television ad in Pakistan condemning the you tube video. What the heck is going on???????

    I don’t know what was being covered up and why false lies of blame were put out there to manipulate people away from the truth; but, good gosh I hope we find out. Those involved with any cover up should be held accountable. My fear is that they won’t be.

  4. ivehadit says:

    Read The Ulsterman Report archives from last September….

  5. Frogg1 says:

    Sharyl Attkisson of CBS has been one of the few reporters who has been on top of this story.

    Three more officials to testify about Benghazi attacks
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57582948/three-more-officials-to-testify-over-benghazi-attacks/?tag=socsh

    and,

    CBS News’ Attkisson: ‘Sometimes I Feel Alone’ Pursuing Benghazi Story
    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/05/02/CBS-News-Atkisson-Benghazi

  6. Frogg1 says:

    A recent Sharyl Attkisson report:

    Diplomat: U.S. Special Forces told “you can’t go” to Benghazi during attacks
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57583014/diplomat-u.s-special-forces-told-you-cant-go-to-benghazi-during-attacks/

    “According to excerpts released Monday, Hicks told investigators that SOCAFRICA commander Lt. Col. Gibson and his team were on their way to board a C-130 from Tripoli for Benghazi prior to an attack on a second U.S. compound “when [Col. Gibson] got a phone call from SOCAFRICA which said, ‘you can’t go now, you don’t have the authority to go now.’ And so they missed the flight … They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it.”

    No assistance arrived from the U.S. military outside of Libya during the hours that Americans were under attack or trapped inside compounds……”

  7. Mike M. says:

    I don’t think there was a great conspiracy, I think the Obama regime panicked. Getting your diplomats killed looks very, very bad. Especially when you had a hand in installing the local government that let them get killed.

  8. oneal lane says:

    This might help the republi-can’ts in the next election. Obama will not be touched as he will have some mid-level folks fall on their swords.

    By far I hope this lessens or ends Hillary’s chances in 2016, otherwise I think she will replace Obama as President without much trouble.

  9. Frogg1 says:

    Getting back to GWood’s post about possible gun running. Will Cain, REal News (Blaze) showed the clip of Issa asking Hicks to talk about the “annex chief” — gets a tap on his shoulder and a whisper in his ear– and drops the question. So, Will Cain finds this interesting and wonders about the annex and it’s involvement in the Benghazi cover up.

    This article asks a lot of those questions, unveils some interesting data, and comes to the conclusion about gun running:

    The Benghazi Affair: Uncovering the Mystery of the Benghazi CIA Annex
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-benghazi-affair-uncovering-the-mystery-of-the-benghazi-cia-annex/5320872

    “Such examples provide the context for how the US government has covertly and overtly been helping to provide the weapons that are then used by those hostile to the US to inflict harm on the Libyan and Syrian people and even on Americans, as those killed in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. This situation, several commentators have noted, is reminiscent to the Iran Contra Affair where the US government entities covertly acted in a way that jeopardized the interests and even the physical well being of US officials and civilians. And it is likely that the actions being taken by US government officials to arm and provide other forms of support for the Libyan and Syrian insurgencies, are contrary to US laws and constitutional obligations.”