By Tom Quiner

The president knew.

Within hours of the attack on our Benghazi embassy in Lybya, the president was receiving e-mails that acknowledged that Al-Qaeda-related groups claimed responsibility for the carnage.

Here’s what the president said the next day, on September 12th:

“We are working to determine the precise motivations and methods of those who carried out this assault. Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is no justification for this; none.”

In other words, he blamed American free speech when he knew it was an orchestrated terrorist attack.

The same day, the president’s press secretary, Jay Carney said:

“It’s too early for us to make that judgment.”

And yet they already knew it was a terrorist attack.

The next day, the 13th, the press secretary doubled down on his previous statement:

“The protests we’re seeing around the region are in reaction to this movie.”

He said this even though he knew it wasn’t a reaction to a movie.

On the same day, a senior U.S. official contradicted Mr. Carney and the president:

” … this was a clearly planned military-type attack.”

That same day, Victoria Nuland of the State Department stuck with the bogus video story:

” … there are plenty of people around the region citing this disgusting video as something that has been motivating.”

The White House sent U.S. Ambassador, Susan Rice, to all of the Sunday morning talking heads show to advance the bogus film scenario:

“There was a hateful video that was disseminated on the Internet. It had nothing to do with the United States government, and it’s one that we find disgusting and reprehensible. It’s been offensive to many, many people around the world. That sparked violence in various parts of the world, including violence directed against Western facilities including our embassies and consulates.”

Keep in mind, they already knew the film story was bogus.

A week later, September 18th, Jay Carney went back to the false story:

“Our belief, based on the information we have, is it was the video that caused the unrest in Cairo, and the video and the unrest in Cairo that helped — that precipitated some of the unrest in Benghazi and elsewhere.”

That same evening, the president appeared on David Letterman and again reiterated the video story:

“Well, here’s what happened. You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy character who is– it’s an extremely offensive video directed at Mohammed and Islam.”

Finally, on September 20th, Jay Carney, fessed up:

“It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently, and the result was four deaths of American officials.”

However, our brazen president stuck to his guns that the anti-Muslim video was still the root cause:

“What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”

Even as the president continue to advance a false story, Secretary of State Clinton admitted on the 22nd:

“What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and we will not rest until we have tracked down and brought to justice the terrorists who murdered four Americans.”

Why did the president and his entire administration work so hard to distort the truth? It appears the president would say and do anything to maintain the illusion of a strong foreign policy. The cornerstone of the illusion was that Al Qaeda was on the run because he had killed Bin Laudin.

Al Qaeda is not on the run. It appears they are on the rebound. It appears that the president’s foreign policy gains are illusory.

Barack Obama was willing to look the American people in the eye on national television and say anything.

He blamed the whole tragic affair on free speech.

He put politics before the truth.

He put politics before honor.

5 Comments

  1. Bob Vance on October 24, 2012 at 5:38 pm

    Alot of people blamed President Bush for his handling of the original 911. I chose to stand behind the President then and I will do so now. We don’t have all the answers yet and because of national security, we might not for a long time. I do know the accusations started immediately in both cases before any facts were known.

    There are alot of Americans on foriegn soil doing work for America. I am sure they all would like to have more support in these times. As for Al Qaeda, they will be around in one form or another for a long time. I think seeing those in Libya who marched on those camps after the incident says alot to how well liked our Ambassador Chris Stevens was liked.

    Hope all is well with you and yours

    🙂

    • quinersdiner on October 24, 2012 at 6:07 pm

      I support our president, too. However, it appears he has not been forthright with us, at best. At worse, it appears there may be a cover-up. Don’t you think we deserve the truth?

  2. Bob Vance on October 24, 2012 at 11:25 pm

    The truth lies somewhere in the spin. Eventually the truth will come out. If there is a cover-up, it is one of the worst ever. Did they handle the news feed well? Obviously not.

    Bottom line, people who hate us and what we stand for did this horrendous act. Not anyone from our side.

    I do see hope in the mobs of people who have showed support of the little girl shot in the head by the Taliban and those who marched on the warlords in Libya after the 9/11 attack. Only when good people (and yes, there are good Muslims) learn to stand up against these thugs will they scatter like the cockroaches they are.

  3. juwannadoright on October 25, 2012 at 4:29 pm

    This President has, as you have frequently pointed out, an unfortunate track record – not only in the policies he conceives, but more importantly in his ability either to discern or tell the truth.

    A simple review of his record reveals that he has been on both sides of the same issues as it suited his political agenda and strongly suggests that he has no investment in honor or substance – merely in getting himself re-elected.

    That is not the kind of person to whom I can look as a standard bearer of principle and is my primary reason in opposing another four years of an Obama administration.

Leave a Comment