Guy Benson, Political Editor at Townhall.com, commented today on the White House’s claim that the anti-American violence that broke out on 9-11-2012 was the overflow of a spontaneous protest over a You Tube video trailer — and the evidence now that they knew by 9-12 it wasn’t a movie protest. It was a planned terrorist attack on the United States, timed for the anniversary of al-Qaeda’s assault on New York and Washington, D.C. in 2001.
The United States suffered a deadly terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11, in which a sitting US Ambassador was murdered. Elsewhere, black Islamist flags were hoisted over four American embassies, following security breaches. The Obama administration lied about the cause and nature of the attack in Benghazi, misled the public about threats leading up to the massacre, and attempted to gloss over the outrageously lax security at the diplomatic outpost prior to the raid. They’ve dissembled and ducked tough questions, instructing journalists to stop asking about details of the massacre, and hiding behind an “ongoing FBI investigation,” even though the FBI still — almost two-and-a-half weeks later — has not managed to gain access to the “crime” scene, which remains unsecured.
Joel B. Pollack summed it up best at Breitbart, with the lead, “People died, Obama lied.”
A week ago, before the full extent of Obama’s deception had become clear, Stephen P. Hayes of the Weekly Standard catalogued some previous examples–from lies about the underwear bomber in 2009 (“an isolated extremist”) to the Times Square bomber in 2010 (a “one-off”).
He could have added the Fort Hood shooting, which the Obama administration refused to call a terror attack, and where a culture of political correctness had allowed Maj. Nidal Hasan to continue in his Army job even after several warnings about his beliefs and his behavior. Even worse, President Obama treated the shooting flippantly, giving “shout outs” before addressing the nation–a gaffe the media have, conveniently, forgotten.
The central deception of the Obama administration is a self-delusion–one shared by the mainstream media–that Barack Hussein Obama is beloved overseas and especially by the Muslim world [.... T]his cultish creed, that Obama’s rise ushered in an age of global peace is what has led our nation’s foreign policy to the present impasse–and for Obama, there is no way out.
The piece in The Weekly Standard, this week, by Stephen F. Hayes, says,
Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, appeared on five Sunday talk shows on September 16. A “hateful video” triggered a “spontaneous protest . . . outside of our consulate in Benghazi” that “spun from there into something much, much more violent,” she said on Face the Nation. “We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.”[....]Rice said [....] “The security personnel that the State Department thought were required were in place,” she said, adding: “We had substantial presence with our personnel and the consulate in Benghazi. Tragically two of the four Americans who were killed were there providing security. That was their function, and indeed there were many other colleagues who were doing the same with them.”
White House press secretary Jay Carney not only denied that the attacks had anything to do with the anniversary of 9/11 but scolded reporters who, citing the administration’s own pre-9/11 boasts about its security preparations for the anniversary, made the connection [....]Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. Intelligence officials understood immediately that the attacks took place on 9/11 for a reason. The ambassador, in a country that faces a growing al Qaeda threat, had virtually no security. The two contractors killed in the attacks were not part of the ambassador’s security detail, and there were not, in fact, “many other colleagues” working security with them. [...] Four Americans were killed in a premeditated terrorist attack on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11, and for more than a week the Obama administration misled the country about what happened.
This isn’t just a problem. It’s a scandal.
If this were the first time top Obama officials had tried to sell a bogus narrative after an attack, perhaps they would deserve the benefit of the doubt. It’s not.
Hayes cites just a few of the terrorist incidents that happened in the United States during the current administration: The case of underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and that of car bomber Faisal Shahzad, in 2009 and 2010. Obama and Janet Napolitano had called the incidents “isolated”, a “one-off”, but the evidence showed that both attacks were Taliban/al-Qaeda activities. The government had known it early on. They started out denying the organized nature of the anti-American violence, then later, when news cameras were swinging elsewhere, admitted that the jihad against America is ongoing, intense and planned.
Pollack’s analysis sounds plausible to me: The Obama supporters have convinced themselves that their leader is a special figure, different from other officeholders, above mere ordinary politics, and that his leadership has brought a peaceful, abundant, egalitarian, generous era. Evidence to the contrary offends them. It’s a challenge to their hopes and dreams. So they ignore it, reframe it, bend words, bend logic, whatever they must do to hold onto the only hope they understand — that if the ultimate Democrat only has ultimate political power (President of the United States), all the problems, which they decided at some point are the doing of Republicans, will fade away