I was listening to a discussion of the new report of the Senate Intelligence Committee regarding the terror attacks on the American consulate in Benghazi, and I was struck by the great dishonesty of the Obama administration. I know that I have often written about president Obama's propensity to try to lie his way out of unpleasant situations, but things seem to have reached a new low. To illustrate what I mean, let's focus on the nature of the attack on the consulate.
When the attack occurred in September 2012, the Obama White House refused to characterize it as a terrorist action. Within a few days, the White House position as voiced by both the official spokesman and by the UN Ambassador Susan Rice was that the Benghazi consulate had been hit by a spontaneous outpouring of anger in Libya over a youtube video supposedly mocking Islam. This position was echoed and reinforced by comments made by both Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the ceremony held when the bodies of the American victims of the attack were brought back to the USA in the week following the onslaught.
Right after the attack, the president of Libya said in an interview that this had been a premeditated attack by terrorists. Within hours, the White House repeated the youtube video story and insulted the Libyan leader (and our supposed ally).
By three weeks after the attack, even the White House was forced to admit that the massacre in Benghazi had been carried out by an organized terrorist group. It seemed at that point that the effort to deflect the story into one about a spontaneous uprising was over.
Recently, the White House has tried again to revitalize the story that the attack had nothing to do with terrorism. This time, they tried to use the old "straw man" tactic. In that strategy, one creates a false choice or issue and then proves that it is wrong, thereby supposedly "proving" the truth of one's own position. Remember, the real issue is whether or not the Benghazi attack was a premeditated terror attack. The White House, however, got the New York Times to print a story which announced (without support) that there was no connection found between the attack and al Qaeda. That, of course, was not the issue. No one was trying to see if the terrorists had memberships in al Qaeda. The real issue was whether or not the consulate had been prepared to withstand a terror attack (no matter what the terror organization) and also whether the response to the attack had been proper.
Following the Times story, the State Department spokesperson was out with repeated briefings to discuss that "core al Qaeda" was not involved with the attack. Core al Qaeda????? The State Department changed the issue into whether or not those leading the attack got orders from the murders in bin Laden's inner circle. Really? That was never the issue.
Each time I hear the woman from the State Department discuss "core al Qaeda", it makes me cringe. Americans are dead, but they don't want to discuss that. The consulate was unable to withstand a terror attack despite warnings that one was coming, but they don't want to discuss that. Once the attack began, Obama did nothing to send help to the folks whose lives were in danger, but they don't want to discuss that. A year and a half later, the leaders of the attack are living normal lives in the open in Benghazi without fear of any reprisal by the USA, but they don't want to discuss that. Obama and Clinton flat out lied to America about who was responsible for the attack, but they don't really want to discuss that. No, they want us all to discuss whether or not "core al Qaeda" led the attack. Well to quote Clinton, "What difference does it make?"
The tactics intended to distract the public and to diffuse the focus can only be called outrageous. it is a word that gets overused in politics these days, but this is not one of those times. What Obama (and Clinton) have done here is outrageous and disgusting.
When the attack occurred in September 2012, the Obama White House refused to characterize it as a terrorist action. Within a few days, the White House position as voiced by both the official spokesman and by the UN Ambassador Susan Rice was that the Benghazi consulate had been hit by a spontaneous outpouring of anger in Libya over a youtube video supposedly mocking Islam. This position was echoed and reinforced by comments made by both Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the ceremony held when the bodies of the American victims of the attack were brought back to the USA in the week following the onslaught.
Right after the attack, the president of Libya said in an interview that this had been a premeditated attack by terrorists. Within hours, the White House repeated the youtube video story and insulted the Libyan leader (and our supposed ally).
By three weeks after the attack, even the White House was forced to admit that the massacre in Benghazi had been carried out by an organized terrorist group. It seemed at that point that the effort to deflect the story into one about a spontaneous uprising was over.
Recently, the White House has tried again to revitalize the story that the attack had nothing to do with terrorism. This time, they tried to use the old "straw man" tactic. In that strategy, one creates a false choice or issue and then proves that it is wrong, thereby supposedly "proving" the truth of one's own position. Remember, the real issue is whether or not the Benghazi attack was a premeditated terror attack. The White House, however, got the New York Times to print a story which announced (without support) that there was no connection found between the attack and al Qaeda. That, of course, was not the issue. No one was trying to see if the terrorists had memberships in al Qaeda. The real issue was whether or not the consulate had been prepared to withstand a terror attack (no matter what the terror organization) and also whether the response to the attack had been proper.
Following the Times story, the State Department spokesperson was out with repeated briefings to discuss that "core al Qaeda" was not involved with the attack. Core al Qaeda????? The State Department changed the issue into whether or not those leading the attack got orders from the murders in bin Laden's inner circle. Really? That was never the issue.
Each time I hear the woman from the State Department discuss "core al Qaeda", it makes me cringe. Americans are dead, but they don't want to discuss that. The consulate was unable to withstand a terror attack despite warnings that one was coming, but they don't want to discuss that. Once the attack began, Obama did nothing to send help to the folks whose lives were in danger, but they don't want to discuss that. A year and a half later, the leaders of the attack are living normal lives in the open in Benghazi without fear of any reprisal by the USA, but they don't want to discuss that. Obama and Clinton flat out lied to America about who was responsible for the attack, but they don't really want to discuss that. No, they want us all to discuss whether or not "core al Qaeda" led the attack. Well to quote Clinton, "What difference does it make?"
The tactics intended to distract the public and to diffuse the focus can only be called outrageous. it is a word that gets overused in politics these days, but this is not one of those times. What Obama (and Clinton) have done here is outrageous and disgusting.
No comments:
Post a Comment