Benghazi-gate

Brian Van Pelt | Staff Columnist
Leah Kucera | STUDENT LIFE

On Oct. 23, CBS News released a series of emails issued by the State Department in the hours after the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. The emails, which indicate that the Obama administration knew that the Benghazi attack was an orchestrated act of terror only hours after the attack, are smoking-gun evidence that President Barack Obama and his administration intentionally misled the American public regarding whether this was a spontaneous protest turned violent or a pre-planned act of terrorism.

The Obama administration maintained for more than a week that the attack was the byproduct of extemporaneous protests condemning an anti-Islamic video that had gone viral on YouTube. On Sept. 14, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said, “We don’t have and did not have concrete evidence to suggest that this was not in reaction to the film.”

This position was highlighted by Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice on Sept. 16 as she appeared on no fewer than five major Sunday morning talk shows to say that the attacks were a “spontaneous reaction” to “a hateful and offensive video that was widely disseminated throughout the Arab and Muslim world.”

Two days later, Carney said, in a briefing, “We saw no evidence to back up claims by others that this was a preplanned or premeditated attack; that we saw evidence that it was sparked by the reaction to this video. And that is what we know thus far based on the evidence, concrete evidence.”

It wasn’t until Sept. 28 that the administration reversed its claims. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a statement saying, “it was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists.”

Only two possibilities remain. Either the president and his staff are completely inept, or they intentionally lied to you. What motivation would Obama have to distort facts leading to evidence that the United States is once again the victim of terrorism at the hands of Islamic extremists? The answer may have something to do with what the president was busy doing the week prior to the embassy attack. He and his supporters were at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte dancing the Texas two-step all over the grave of Osama Bin Laden. The proverbial spiking of the Bin Laden football was so conspicuous that even Jon Stewart couldn’t help to mock them on “The Daily Show.”

With Governor Mitt Romney taking direct aim at Obama’s anemic foreign policy, the president can’t afford to be seen as any more lackluster on national security. Swing voters might see a successful terrorist attack on a U.S. embassy, which resulted in the death of a foreign dignitary, as conclusive evidence that the administration isn’t tough enough on terror. Others might see the terrorist attack as an act of war to which the Obama administration has, as of yet, no response.

By repackaging the terrorist attack as “a spontaneously inspired protest,” Obama doesn’t have to shoulder the responsibility of a terrorist attack being carried out under his nose and on his watch.

The Obama administration will probably continue to spin this story as it unfolds. It will say that the same group that claimed responsibility (as reported in the recently released emails), Ansar al-Sharia, denied responsibility several days later—even though eyewitnesses reported its leaders orchestrating events on the ground. They will emphasize Obama’s vague reference to an “act of terror” in his speech in the Rose Garden on Sept.12 and make Benghazi-gate about semantics. They will say that they are still putting the intelligence together into a coherent picture and that things get lost in, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton put it, “the fog of war.”

The only fog is that surrounding the minds of voters who stand in unquestioned support of Obama. The president’s stances on most issues may appeal broadly to college-age voters, but his integrity needs to be brought under greater scrutiny. He may be telling you what you want to hear—and you may be drinking up the Kool-Aid like a denizen of Jonestown—but at some point you have to ask yourself if he is telling you the truth.

  • Fuzzbuster

    Let me sum this up:

    It’s 9-11 2012. Our Embassy is attacked for 7-8 hours.
    Emails confirmed Obama knew about the attack in real time.
    Obama Wimped Out – he failed to initiate military action.
    People Died. More people died. Still, no military action.
    Our Embassy in Libya, which Obama constructed, was destroyed, without a fight.
    Obama lied. He made up a crazy story about a YouTube video about Muhammed
    Obama’s staff lied – they continued to claim this YouTube video was responsible.
    Hillary Clinton lied….to the the victim’s father – declaring that she would make those who made the video pay for what happened.
    The man who made the YouTube video was interrogated by Feds and ultimately jailed. He still sits in Jail today and won’t be released until just after after the election.
    Obama lied in the debates with Romney. Biden lied in the debate with Ryan. Carney lied for Obama-Biden to the American people. Obama continues the cover-up by refusing to provide us with a copy of his “directive”. There was no directive; another Obama lie.

    So far our Embassy was destroyed, our Ambassador was brutally murdered, our Embassy staff was brutally murdered; an American Citizen was interrogated, scapegoated, and Jailed as a result of a video he made..in the United States. Obama apologizes for a Video about Muhammed. The Senate refuses to impeach Obama to find the truth, and Obama continues to pile on lie, upon lie, upon lie.

    This is so wrong on so many levels.

  • J

    Thank you so much for posting this in the Washington University newspaper. Even though universities are meant to encourage free speech, it is difficult to speak the truth about our liberal President at Wash U.

    Evidence has shown that Obama was either completely inept or lied to the American people before, during, and after the terrorist attack in Benghazi.

    We know that last year, Obama supported and even provided resources to radical extremists who overthrew the dictator Muammar Gaddafi in Libya… even though he was anti-al-Qaeda and was not pursuing the construction of a nuclear bomb.

    Time and time again during this campaign season, Obama and Biden have stated that since Osama bin Laden is dead, al-Qaeda is on it’s heals. This could not be further from the truth. Al-Qaeda is as strong as it has been in the last decade.

    While the civil war continued in Libya, the Red Cross, Britain, and other countries made sure their representatives were out of Libya. Since pulling Ambassador Stevens out of Libya would not have been consistent with Obama’s “successful foreign policy,” he kept the Ambassador in Libya with minimal security. It is even believed that Stevens was providing the radicals weapons to win the civil war in Libya.

    On September 11th, 2012, the United States was attacked by al-Qaeda in Benghazi. The SEALS in Benghazi asked for back up THREE TIMES, yet were denied by SOMEONE higher up (the Commander-in-Chief is the only one who can approve of this). Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, ex-SEALS that then worked for the CIA, went against orders and tried to save as many at the consulate as possible. After over 8 hours of fighting, Ambassador Stevens, Woods, Doherty, and Smith all were killed by members of al-Qaeda. With military forces within an hour of the consulate, it was very possible that these Americans could have been saved. The next day, Obama blamed the attack on a riot based on an American YouTube video with less than 100 views. He, along with Hilary Clinton and Joe Biden, would continue saying this for weeks. When Mitt Romney attempted to call out Obama in the second debate, liberal Candy Crowley quickly agreed with Obama, even though she and Obama were both wrong. If Obama called the attacks an “act of terror,” then why did he go on talk shows and tell the UN that the attacks were based on a YouTube video? After a few weeks, information leaked out that the President was in the Situation Room during the attacks and watched a live video feed from a drone hovering over the Benghazi consulate. He did nothing to save Americans and then attempted to cover it up by blaming an American filmmaker, who still sits in prison today for expressing his “Freedom of Speech.” It is entirely possible that Obama knew about the attack beforehand. Some say he planned on letting the Ambassador be captured so he can save the day by trading The Blind Sheikh, the mastermind behind the first Twin Tower attacks, for the captured Stevens. Thus, everyone would praise his leadership in this staged foreign affairs crisis and would surely get reelected.

    And through all of this, the liberal media is completely ignoring everything. No mention of this in CNN, CBS, NY Times, Huffington Post, and especially NBC. Only Fox News is trying to uncover this scandal.

    If at least part of this is true, Obama should be impeached and tried for murder and treason. At best, he is unfit to hold the position of President of the United States. We live in sad times and as the truth comes out, shit is gonna get real in the USA.

  • Jim Gapp

    I do not believe Obama or the Administration is telling the truth. With all the new puzzle pieces coming together, it is very likely that this is a cover up. I fear this cover up may have even more behind it than most are talking about. If Obama gets in office, which I doubt, I do believe that if enough people come forward it would make Watergate look like a venial sin.