Michelle Malkin: “This Administration Has Been Malicious & Reckless With the Truth”
View on YouTube
The lies and finger-pointing are reaching a fever pitch as the Obama administration’s cover-up of the Libyan terror attack unravels.
Hillary Clinton’s State Department is is lying about their original claims and trying to pin blame on the White House.
The White House blames intelligence agencies and denies knowing what they knew within 24 hours: that this was a pre-planned terrorist attack, not a reaction to an obscure video.
Congress is furious, wanting to know why they were lied to.
Everybody is looking for someone to throw under the bus. If you ask me, both Obama and Clinton should be on their way to jail for this.
Today’s congressional hearing on the Sep. 11, 2012 attacks across the Middle East, that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans in Benghazi, have destroyed the Obama administration’s lies about the event. There was not enough security in Benghazi, despite repeated requests; there was no preparation for the attacks, despite intelligence and warning signs; and the assault in Libya had nothing to do with an anti-Islamic video, as President Barack Obama and his appointees had claimed for weeks.
[…] In one of today’s hearing’s more memorable–and ignoble–exchanges, Rep. Darrell Issa took umbrage at State Department Official for Embassy Security Charlene Lamb’s assertion that “We had the correct number of assets in Benghazi at the time of 9/11 for what had been agreed upon.” Issa retorted that her claim “doesn’t seem to ring true to the American people.” Nor, indeed, did it comport with other evidence presented to the hearing, including Lt. Col, Andrew Wood, who once headed U.S. security in Libya and testified that there had been serious deficiencies in embassy security, and that it had never been protected with the necessary resources.
What is clear is that the attacks on the anniversary 9/11 took the Obama administration by surprise; that the administration placed too much confidence in the removal of Osama bin Laden, as well as the President’s own personal popularity, in declaring that Al Qaeda was in retreat; that the first impulse of the administration was to attack freedom of expression in the U.S., as well as the political opposition; that the administration never lived up to its most basic security responsibilities in Libya; that it lied for weeks about the most serious terror attack against the United States in years; and that it is lying still, in an attempt to minimize political fallout.
The entire cover-up is falling apart–and today’s congressional hearings are likely just the beginning.
Two ex-security officers offered damning testimony about how the Obama administration dismissed their security concerns and either denied or ignored their requests for hightened security:
After a day of testimony on Capitol Hill and weeks of conflicting accounts from the Obama administration regarding the deadly Libya attack, the frustration of boots-on-the-ground employees boiled over late Wednesday.
Scathing criticism from two former security officers for the U.S. mission in Libya surfaced at the close of an already-tense hearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
During that hearing, senior officials continued to play down any suggestion that additional security forces could have prevented what was described as an “unprecedented” attack on Sept. 11.
But the two security officers indicated they were butting heads with higher-ups all along to try to secure more staffing.
“We were fighting a losing battle. We couldn’t even keep what we had,” said Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, former head of a 16-member U.S. military team that helped protect the embassy in Tripoli.
The State Department’s former regional security officer in the country, Eric Nordstrom, closed by recalling a conversation he had with a State official when asking for more agents on the ground. After being told he was asking for too much, Nordstrom recalled saying:
“‘You know what (is) most frustrating about this assignment? It’s not the hardships, it’s not the gunfire, it’s not the threats. It’s dealing and fighting against the people, programs and personnel who are supposed to be supporting me.’
“And I added it by saying, ‘For me, the Taliban is on the inside of the building.'”
South Carolina’s Congressman Trey Gowdy demanded that Ambassador Susan Rice be made to testify under oath what she knew and who told her to peddle the false narrative about a video being to blame, adding:
This was never about a video! It was never spontaneous! This is terror, and I want to know why we were lied to!
But the administration isn’t done trying to lie their way out of this. The State Department is now denying that they ever blamed a video in the first place, even though the evidence on tape clearly shows otherwise. For days, they went repeatedly on camera and claimed exactly that. People may have short memories, but video footage is forever.
Plainly, this latest State Department briefing is an attempt by Clinton and her department to finger the White House, laying blame for the misrepresentation over days and days about the attack at the doorstep of the Oval Office, not at Foggy Bottom. Romney adviser and former U.N. ambassador John Bolton tells Right Turn: “I think we are seeing a split between the State career bureaucracy and the White House, a real blue moon event under a Democratic president. Both Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Rice publicly endorsed the movie explanation in the days after the attack, aligning them with the White House.”
This certainly reveals the extent of the mendacity by those scrambling to avoid blame and the degree to which the “movie made them do it” lie is now politically toxic. Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute reacted this way via e-mail to Right Turn: “I’ve always been an admirer of Hillary Clinton’s willingness to set herself apart from the Obama political machine; but the fact that she was willing to double down on the White House’s deliberate lie regarding the genesis of the terrorist attack in Benghazi isn’t just disappointing, it’s appalling. And lying about the lie pushes the State Department into the realm of farce.” […]
A senior Republican foreign policy adviser on the Hill had a similar reaction, telling me, “It’s pretty clear the State Department, now caught in a lie, is responding with yet another lie. Every part of the administration — from the White House on down — connected the movie with protests in Cairo and the attack in Libya. These statements were crystallized by Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Rice — straight to camera — words that cannot be erased as if they were never spoken.” He added, “ The truth is pretty simple — four weeks before a presidential election, the Obama administration knows it cannot afford to tell the American people that its foreign policy is plagued by a knee-jerk, blame-America-first mentality that sought to blame America’s freedom of speech for the first terrorist attack on U.S. soil since September 11th.”
It’s time to evict this corrupt administration from office and start drawing up indictments.
Cross posted at ThoughtsFromAConservativeMom.com
- Obama Admin. Lied To Americans About Libya
- Report: US Ignored 48-Hour Advance Warning Of Embassy Attack, Wouldn’t Allow Marines To Carry Live Ammo
- Obama’s Libya Lies: Worse Than Watergate
- White House blames intelligence agencies for Benghazi confusion
- State Dept.: Susan Rice, Obama administration completely wrong on Libya attack details
- State Department officials: We never concluded the Benghazi attack was related to protest about a video
- There Was No Protest, Only a Terrorist Attack, in Libya
- Issa wants classified briefing on Libya intel
- Benghazi-Gate – time for the White House to come clean