Who Fed Susan the Benghazi Bullhockey?
At his news conference Wednesday, President Barack Obama postured as the young Galahad striding out onto the schoolyard to stop a pair of bullies from beating up a girl.
Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham had charged U.N. Amb. Susan Rice with misleading the nation when, five days after the Benghazi attack in which Amb. Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed, she appeared on five TV shows to say it had all resulted from a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Muslim video.
Susan Rice, thundered Obama, “made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her.
“If Sen. McCain and Sen. Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. … But for them to go after the U.N. ambassador, who had nothing to do with Benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received, and to besmirch her reputation is outrageous.”
The indignation here is more than a bit cloying. After all, Rice’s rendition of the worst terror attack on the U.S. since 9/11 was utterly false.
There never was a protest.
Rice misled the nation. No one now denies that. The question is: Did Rice deceive us, or was she herself misled or deceived?
Far from being a convincing defense, Obama’s remarks call into question the competence or the truthfulness of the White House itself.
Consider again what Obama said.
Susan Rice “had nothing to do with Benghazi.”
But if she “had nothing to do with Benghazi,” why was she sent out “at the request of the White House” to explain Benghazi?
Who at the White House programmed Rice? Did she push back at all when fed this bullhockey about Benghazi? Or does she just parrot the party line when told to do so?
Why did the White House not send Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, CIA Director David Petraeus, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta or National Security Adviser Tom Donilon? Or did they decline to go?
The president says Rice “gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her.”
And who might be the source of that “intelligence” about the protest in Benghazi, when there was no protest in Benghazi?
Rice was scripted to tell the nation it was not a “preplanned” attack, when that is exactly what it was. The CIA knew it within hours, because two of its former Navy SEALs died in the attack, and other CIA people survived and got out the next morning.
Here we come to the heart of the matter.
Though journalists, CIA personnel and State Department people listening in real time all knew from intercepts and reports back from our people on the ground that this was a terrorist attack involving automatic weapons, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars, the fabricated story — that it came out of a protest, a protest that never happened — was pushed relentlessly by the administration.
Jay Carney pushed it two days after the attack. Petraeus pushed it on the Hill three days after the attack. Rice went on five TV shows five days after the attack to recite it chapter and verse. Obama held off calling it a terror attack for weeks in TV interviews and mentioned the video half a dozen times at the U.N. on Sept. 25.
Another question arises from the press conference.
When Obama said Rice “gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her,” was that also the best intelligence the president of the United States had?
If it is, if five days after the attack Obama was that clueless about what actually happened in Benghazi, he ought to clean house at his intelligence agencies.
From the outside, it appears everybody was on board to describe the attack as “spontaneous” and attribute it to the video.
Yet none of this was true. And many inside knew, during or right after the attack, the truth about what had happened and were leaking it to the press. That brings us to the question: Why?
Why would the administration hierarchy collaborate in putting out a phony story denying there had been a terrorist attack and attributing it to a spontaneous riot that never happened?
Two answers come to mind:
One, the “spontaneous protest” cover story would enable Obama to keep pushing his campaign line that he had gotten Osama bin Laden and that al-Qaida was “on the run” and “on the path to defeat.” A successful al-Qaida-type attack in Libya would have contradicted his best foreign policy claim.
Second, if it was a spontaneous attack, an attack no one could have foreseen, predicted or prevented, then that would absolve the administration of responsibility for failing to see it coming, failing to provide greater security, failing to have forces prepared to deal with it when our guys were being shot and killed for seven hours.
What was behind the cover-up is what Congress needs to find out.
These might be related:
Harold
ACGR's "News with Attitude" 
I am not ready to make assertions but I am asking the same questions as Pat. The role of the video is irrelevant if it was or was not a Planned attack. We have been there before with some of the people that made the video, twice in fact, once from that Jewish editor from Sweden that caused a global uproar, the other the burning of he Koran which also caused an uproar. In Each case those who felt the brunt were our troops on the front line which is one reason that prompted Petraeus investigation of the report that Israel had sent her own special forces and Mossad to the border and caused arm to our troops. Petraeus Refused to stay silent on that and completed the investigation which eventually resulted in several high level military and government official stating that Israel had become a problem for us with their meddling.
Benghazi: when the Libya trouble started Israel backed Gaddafi and the military with whom it had good relations and did-not want to see them replaced, and helped Quadaffi and his sons by recruting African mercenaries and other help for them. Directly stated Israel was helping the dictators while we backed the protester. That was a continuations of their activities at the Middle East front line as welll as the Central Asia area. They did that even during Bush war to secure a foot or claim to the Mosul, They would not let Papa Bush fly over Israel or land there on the first Iraq war, in each case they rush in work with the tribes and assures theselves a bargaining position at the table, they do no care which side.
It was to be expected therefore that they would send their forces and Mossad to Libya who is crucial to them on Natural Gas and etc. They also helped Mibarak in Egypt.
When Hillary was asked what the Israeli where doing in Libya, Egypt etc she said they were there to make sure they would maintain the agreements they had and make sure the Brotherhood would not control the new government. The El Queda name came up several times but every rational person knows by now the questionable relation between Israel and El Qaeda since they provided Bin Laded with the weapon he requested while he was preparing the attack on the USA (info was released by the Pentagon before the attack a problem the Pentagon has complained to State, with no response of course,that Israel was selling our secret weapons to the highest bidder in contradiction of agreement) .
So, Israel was in Benghazy all along maniputaling the issue there to keep some control and influence with the hostile tribe and groups that were not ready to give up. It takes years after a revolution, for all to be re-integrated positively in a new government. That is evevry where and in such a situation is where Israel operates best, including drug Cartels. This is nothing knew globally and historically. What is knew is a group of people, now a nation of their own,who are specialists at using unrest for their advantage be it selling weapons or fighting where they want them to.
So, the fact that in Libya such group exist waiting for the right moment to intewrvene should not be an issue of surprise nor it was a surprise to the CIA. We all keep our eyes on things prone to katch fire given proper conditions, so, drop that “should have known blarney”
The issue is who is the manipulator, Back to the film. We have obvious crazy Zionist here in the US constantly trying to cause trouble. We have groups in Libya and elsewhere ready to jump in on trouble. We can be sure they know each other and communicate.
So, “send the film we take it from here”. Close that issue and jabbering garbage and get to the key source, motive and opportunity.
Now back to Pat: who fed the note to Rice and, Why Rice? why not Hillary who announced her intent to quit at about that time, but she did come out and presented the best support for the tape as the cause of the protest regionally, along with a lame excuse why we could not drag out those Jewish billionaires from Texas who paid for it and their full role and motive, biggest cover up of all. One political motive was to deny Obama claim of positive leadership internationally. In fact Romney was so fast in his claim he had to know it was planned AND LOST NO TIME swithching to lack of leadership for Obama
Someone is dead, not just someone the Ambassador who happened to have been very popular in Libya with the resistance forces. ElQaeda: Time to clear that up. it was Bin Laden organization, imitation developed fast. The name is used to gain terror status. Who these people are is another question. The word El Qaeda will be around for decades eved used like the Bad Wolf by children. It does not imply the kind of organization Bin Laden had and supported with his money and religion. As for Obama he must start by cleaning out the State Department. Hillart wisely retires she is too compromised with Israel.
.