Thursday, September 27, 2012

Incompentancy in Benghazi and the Obama Failure...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
-vs- Tyranny

The attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 12, 2012.

As more time passes we are learning conclusively of security lapses at the Libyan Consulate in Benghazi as well as it becoming clear the Obama administration has been less than truthful with the American people. Were it not for responsible journalists staying on the story we might never have known the dishonesty President Obama and his administration is capable of.

WSJ - In his United Nations speech on Tuesday, President Obama talked about the September 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya and declared that "there should be no doubt that we will be relentless in tracking down the killers and bringing them to justice." What he didn't say is how relentless he'll be in tracking down the security lapses and intelligence failures that contributed to the murders. Let's say there's some doubt about that.

None of the initial explanations offered by the White House and State Department since the assault on the Benghazi consulate has held up. First the Administration blamed protests provoked by an amateurish anti-Islam clip posted on YouTube. Cue Susan Rice, the U.N. Ambassador and leading candidate for Secretary of State in a second Obama term: "What happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction . . . as a consequence of the video, that people gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent."

Administration officials also maintained that the diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt, the site of the first attacks this September 11, were properly defended and that the U.S. had no reason to prepare for any attack. "The office of the director of National Intelligence has said we have no actionable intelligence that an attack on our post in Benghazi was planned or imminent," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said last week, calling the security measures in place there "robust."

Cell phone video footage and witness testimony from Benghazi soon undercut the Administration trope of an angry march "hijacked" by a few bad people. As it turned out, the assault was well-coordinated, with fighters armed with guns, RPGs and diesel canisters, which were used to set the buildings on fire. Ambassador Chris Stevens died of smoke inhalation. Briefing Congress, the Administration changed its story and said the attacks were pre-planned and linked to al Qaeda.

You'd think this admission would focus attention on why the compound was so vulnerable to begin with. But the Administration wants to avoid this conversation. The removal of all staff from Benghazi, including a large component of intelligence officers, would also seem to hinder their ability to investigate the attacks and bring the killers to justice.

Journalists have stayed on the case, however, and their reporting is filling in the Administration's holes. On Friday, our WSJ colleagues showed that starting in spring, U.S. intelligence had been worried about radical militias in eastern Libya. These armed groups helped topple Moammar Ghadhafi last year but weren't demobilized as a new government has slowly found its legs. As we've noted since last winter, the waning of American and European interest in Libya could have dangerous consequences.

Deteriorating security was no secret. On April 10, for example, an explosive device was thrown at a convoy carrying U.N. envoy Ian Martin. On June 6, an improvised explosive device exploded outside the U.S. consulate. In late August, State warned American citizens who were planning to travel to Libya about the threat of assassinations and car bombings.

Despite all this, U.S. diplomatic missions had minimal security... {Read More}

I can't help but remember the rhetoric surrounding the Bush administration and the accusations that he and his administration lied about the existence of WMD in Iraq. Perhaps to a degree the criticism were correct, although they have never been proven beyond a doubt.

Here is a clear cut case of the President being less than honest and hoping Teflon layering works well for him. Although these reports are unlikely to cause the ObamaBots to even miss a beat in the march for "Hope and Change" and "Forward"

Via: Memeorandum


Presidential spokesman Jay Carney said the President and his administration did not initially lie regarding the terrorist attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi during which four American lives were lost. Multiple sources demonstrate the administration is; 1) totally inept, and 2) lying. Can there be any doubt of a cover up attempt by this administration?

Townhall - During a press gaggle on board Air Force One this morning in Virginia Beach, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney accused Mitt Romney of "politicizing" the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi in reference to pressure from the campaign to come clean about what really happened. Carney also referred reporters to an ongoing FBI investigation when asked about specifics on Libya. The problem? The FBI still isn't in Benghazi despite the administration saying repeatedly they are. Carney also tried to spin Obama's refusal to call the attack an act of terrorism and covered for the administration in its lie to the American people that the attack was "spontaneous" and not planned.


Q If the President does not call it, label it a terrorist attack as you and others have, is there some legal or diplomatic trigger that that brings? Why hasn’t he said that?

MR. CARNEY: I think you’re misunderstanding something here. I’m the President’s spokesman. When the head of the National Counterterrorism Center, Matt Olsen, in open testimony in Congress answered a question by saying yes, by the definitions we go by -- this is me paraphrasing -- this was a terrorist attack -- I echoed that, because this President, this administration, everybody looks to the intelligence community for the assessments on this. And it has been since I said so, the President’s position that this was a terrorist attack.

There are broader issues here that the President has addressed in answering questions, and he’s obviously interested in, as we all are, in waiting for the final result of an investigation. But let’s be clear about this. Every step of the way, the information that we have provided to you and the general public about the attack in Benghazi has been based on the best intelligence we’ve had and the assessments of our intelligence community. We have said all along that there’s an ongoing investigation and that as more facts come out, we will follow those facts wherever they lead and apprise you of our assessments as those facts come to light. {Read More}

Via: Memeorandum


  1. "I can't help but remember the rhetoric surrounding the Bush administration and the accusations that he and his administration lied about the existence of WMD in Iraq. Perhaps to a degree the criticism were correct, although they have never been proven beyond a doubt."

    You are wrong. The US army (after a 2 year search of Iraq) President Bush himself and the rest of his administration said there were no WMD's in Iraq.

    Conspiracy theorists like yourself will never accept that, but it is a fact.

    1. WMD could have been removed w/o the US detecting them. I am not saying this is the case. I'm merely stating the possibility. I am not a conspiracy theorist even if you say so. Now, if you come back with your usual off the wall and delusional comment it will not get posted.

      Now, hows about responding TO the issue item of the article? Oh that's right, you can't. So evasion once again becomes your MO.

  2. He's incompetent, and so are his foreign policy "experts," and we're paying the price.

    1. Frik is really doing a fine job of it for certain. Unfortunately, his brotherly opponent Frak ain't looking a hell of a lot more competent either these days.

  3. 16 days and they STILL haven't been able to secure the crime scene. If Bush or McCain were President, this would be huge. Thankfully, Anderson Cooper at least is covering it.

  4. Ya' know, Les, "ya'd think" by now you would notice how you get sucked into rightwing politics.

    People, like me, who also agree there were problems in Benghazi, complained like crazy about this sort of thing forever. But we, well, most of us, try to imagine the actual, real life operations involved, and listen to those who were there.

    We have things happening around the world right now that are new and will require new thinking. Neighing at changes in reality, as the rightwing would have it, accomplishes only the opposite of the desired effect.

    Yes, we should address security issues.

    No, we should not put the old Bush team back in charge of all this.

    In other words - only a moron would vote for Romney.

    Of course, I don't have to tell you that. Given our current and foreseeable congress, a Gary Johnson would probably be a great President. I'm not kidding.


  5. "But we, well, most of us, try to imagine the actual, real life operations involved, and listen to those who were there."

    Why, because your guy is in charge?

    Your intellectual dishonesty sucks; you're just as bad -- if not worse -- than the hyper-partisan right-wing that you bemoan.

  6. What I want to know is who in the hell was it who fed those lies to Carney and Rice. Somebody had to (the National Security Adviser, the Chief of Staff, the C.I.A., Hillary?????) and the American public certainly deserves to know.

  7. Jersey said: "No, we should not put the old Bush team back in charge of all this."

    Actually, that would be a hell of a great idea. The Bush team learned from its mistakes. Especially after 9/11. Before that, it kept the Clinton policy of ignoring terrorist threats. After the price of this mistake was paid on 9/11, that's one thing you couldn't say about the Bush team any more.

    Flash forward to the current month. Our "9/10" President was warned of the Libya debacle days before it happened.... and he ignored it. That's a mistake Bush would not have made.


As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 3/4/18 Anonymous commenting has been disabled and this site has reverted to comment moderation. This unfortunate action is necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or irrelevant to the post subject.

While we appreciate and encourage all political viewpoints we feel no obligation to post comments that fail to rise to the standards of decency and decorum we have set for Rational Nation USA.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.