Benghazi consulate massacre: White House knew within 24 hours it was a terrorist attack

**Posted by Phineas

It was on September 11th, 2012, that our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and a supposedly secret safe house there were attacked by jihadists allied with al Qaeda. Our ambassador was raped and murdered. Three other Americans died in the slaughter. For over a week after the attack, spokespeople for the Obama Administration, including the president, himself, insisted the problem started with outrage over an obscure video posted to YouTube and that the attack was a spontaneous eruption, not preplanned:

So, you’ll be totally shocked —SHOCKED, I say!!— to learn that all these wonderful public servants were lying through their teeth.

They knew within a day:

Within 24 hours of the 9-11 anniversary attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi, U.S. intelligence agencies had strong indications al Qaeda–affiliated operatives were behind the attack, and had even pinpointed the location of one of those attackers. Three separate U.S. intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast said the early information was enough to show that the attack was planned and the work of al Qaeda affiliates operating in Eastern Libya.

Nonetheless, it took until late last week for the White House and the administration to formally acknowledge that the Benghazi assault was a terrorist attack. On Sunday, Obama adviser Robert Gibbs explained the evolving narrative as a function of new information coming in quickly on the attacks. “We learned more information every single day about what happened,” Gibbs said on Fox News. “Nobody wants to get to the bottom of this faster than we do.”

The intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast did so anonymously because they weren’t authorized to speak to the press. They said U.S. intelligence agencies developed leads on four of the participants of the attacks within 24 hours of the fire fight that took place mainly at an annex near the Benghazi consulate. For one of those individuals, the U.S. agencies were able to find his location after his use of social media. “We had two kinds of intelligence on one guy,” this official said. “We believe we had enough to target him.”

So not only did they have warning of the attack, but they knew by September 12th that it was a jihadist strike and they had even located one of the ringleaders. Look at the dates on that list above, again. For two full weeks after the massacre and intelligence catastrophe, high officials from the president on down were insisting it was either a spontaneous outgrowth from a demonstration that got out of hand (And to which people just happened to bring heavy weapons.) or that we just didn’t know and were still investigating.

It’s not that they lied that’s so appalling; all administrations will lie when it comes to national security matters, if they feel it’s necessary. And often they’re right to do so, when telling the truth could lead to greater harm.

But it’s the motive for these lies that’s truly offensive. It wasn’t to fool the enemy — they knew what really happened. It wasn’t to deceive them about our response; if we knew where one of these clowns was hiding, we could have snatched or killed him by now, and the administration could spike the ball on this, too. No, the Obama administration’s reactions in the wake of the massacre were too clumsy and uncoordinated to be a cover for retaliatory operations. They simply didn’t know what to do, except play CYA. It’s politically insane, because, had they come out and said forcefully “It’s a war. Al Qaeda hit us, but we’ll get these monsters,” much of the nation would have instinctively “rallied to the flag” and backed Obama.

Instead they lied. To us. Why?

The only motive for this serial lying was to deceive us. They are desperate to get the press off their backs and mollify the American people, treating the MSM like tools (admittedly, that’s often justified) and us like idiots or gullible children in the hope they can avoid a well-earned heaping helping of blame for this deadly fiasco. Obama’s reelection is all that matters.

Americans died, Obama lied.

As former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy writes on a closely related matter:

If they lie, you can’t trust them. That’s a fairly straightforward rule. It is certainly the one that trial lawyers bank on.

It is not a hard and fast rule. A person may shade the truth for various reasons: vanity, personal allegiances, financial incentives, etc. Usually, once you figure out the relevant motivation, you can sort out on what matters he is probably credible and what he is prone to lie about. Sometimes, though, the story is so unbelievable, so insulting to the intelligence, that a rational juror knows it is best to discount all of the testimony — or, worse, to conclude that the truth is likely the opposite of the witness’s desperate version.

The claim that the demonstrations and embassy invasion in Cairo and the massacre in Libya were spontaneous reactions to an obscure video is just that sort of insult to our intelligence. It is sad and pathetic.

Just like the Obama administration, itself.

via Hot Air

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Is Obama skipping out on meeting with world leaders to spite Romney?

Fox News national security analyst K.T. McFarland writes an intriguing piece on why she thinks President Obama is skipping out on tradition by not meeting with world leaders this week at the UN:

Why would President Obama part with a long standing tradition and refuse to meet with world leaders this week at the United Nations? It’s the single time and place every year where all the world’s leaders are in one place. It’s the one opportunity all year for face-to face-meetings, to iron out problems and to sound out solutions and to work, without the glare of formal state visits. So why is President Obama doing a hit and run at the UN? Too busy for meetings, but not too busy to go to fundraisers or to appear on New York-based daytime talk shows while he’s in the Big Apple?

None of the excuses make any sense — ‘he’s too busy campaigning,’ ‘he can talk to them on the phone anytime,’ ‘he can’t meet with everyone, so he’s meeting with no one.’

Everyone is missing the point. In an election year, if the president meets with world leaders, his opponent has the right to ask for meetings, too. And no world leader, who might be facing a President Romney in just a few weeks time, dares to refuse that request. They will all hedge their bets. After all, when the president travels abroad, he often meets with the opposition leader of a country, especially in the middle of an election season.” And President Bill Clinton, hardly one to promote a Republican candidate, gave equal time to both Romney and Obama speeches at the Clinton Global Initiative Conference this week.

And that is exactly what President Obama wants to avoid — doing anything that lets Romney look presidential. Obama and his surrogates have been quick to criticize Romney as lacking foreign policy experience. It’s hard to make that point if there is photo after photo of Romney grinning and shaking hands with one world leader after another.

She makes a compelling case, and I’m inclined to agree with her. This President has proven time and time again – especially over the last few weeks – that he is shamelessly willing to put partisan politics and game playing above at least appearing to be presidential and leader-like in a time of international crisis. What better way to deny Romney the chance to counter the images of Obama and the First Lady on fluff shows like “The View” than to keep his opponent from the opportunity of obligatory meetings with heads of state by way of refusal by Obama to meet with them individually himself, as would be his privilege as the sitting President?

Obama has a seeming (but questionable) edge in battleground state polls as of late, and this President , his administration, and his campaign want to continue to ride that wave and keep that alleged poll edge from now until election day. So it’s understandable why they’ve chosen the path they did this week on the issue of face time with world leaders.

It’s also very transparent what they’re doing … and not in a good way. Leaders lead while politicians play politics. I’ll leave it up to you to determine which description best fits our President.