The further to the left or the right you move, the more your lens on life distorts.

Friday, May 02, 2014


The latest revelations about the politicization and lying that occurred in the days immediately following the murder of the US ambassador and 3 other Americans in Benghazi seem to be a surprise to the trained hamsters that make up the majority of the main stream media. Those of us who have followed this story from the beginning knew to an absolute certainty that (1) the anti-Islamic video had nothing to do with the Benghazi attack, (2) that the Obama administration created a lie to protect Barack Obama in his re-election run, and (3) that Susan Rice was a shill to promote that lie. The latest email supports all of that (despite embarrassingly convoluted dissembling by the administration) but sadly, there will be no consequences—Barack Obama was re-elected. The lies contributed to that result. They worked!

There is, however, a far more important set of questions that have yet to be answered. In a post entitled, Nairobi vs. Benghazi, I wrote the following two weeks after the Benghazi attack and immediately after a terrorist attack in Nairobi:
It's also worth noting that with hours of the Nairobi attack, an Israeli special forces team was in the city working with Kenyan military to defeat the Islamists.

It's interesting that the Israelis moved to intercede in a terrorist attack within hours. No one gave a stand down order. Reportedly, they flew 2,300 miles into harms way to help stop the attack.

Now let's compare Israel's response in Nairobi to the US response in last year's Benghazi attack. We don't know much about the US response due to stonewalling by the Obama administration and the state department. US special forces teams were less than 1,000 miles away from Libya, were highly trained and available, but they never moved, although the attack as best we can determine lasted well over eight hours.

We still don't know why that happened. We still haven't had full accounting from the military officers who were involved. We still don't know whether Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton had and role in decision making that led to the deaths of a US ambassador and three other Americans. We still don't know whether rumors of a covert CIA gun running operation are true and what affect that had if it is true. We still don't know whether domestic political considerations (the 2012 Presidential campaign) has any impact on decision-making. [We know that now] We still don't know whether any of the perpetrators will ever be caught and punished. We still haven't seen the results of any FBI investigation. What we do know is that that the administration knowingly and blatantly lied about the cause of the attack, and that the MSM is remarkably uninterested in any of this and as a consequence, the administration's stonewalling has been applied with near perfection.
The majority of questions I asked in 2012 have yet to be answered.

Nancy Pelosi, the hyperpartisan House Minority Leader, reflects the prevailing Democrat position. Yesterday, she asked: "‘Why Aren’t We Talking About Something Else?’"

Because Congresswoman, the web of lies grows, even when your party works overtime trying to obfuscate, misdirect, and otherwise change the subject. Until we get solid answers to the questions I and many others asked almost two years ago, until the stonewalling stops, the "talking" will continue. It should. It will. It must.

In an aggressive interview by Brett Baier of FoxNews, former administration spokesman Tommy Vietor did what the administration always does relative to any of the significant scandals that plague the White House—obfuscate, misdirect, and otherwise change the subject.

In what has to be characterized as ultimate chutzpa, they suggest that any questions about any of these scandals (e.g., Benghazi, IRS) are "politically motivated" but that their actions were pure as the wind driven snow.

In mild frustration that Baier continued to ask for details on what happened on the night or the terroist attack and in the days immediately following, Vietor blurted, “Dude, this was like two years ago.”

Dude ... two years, no answers, a web of lies. The Obama administration M.O.


The web of lies continues to fray. Sharyl Attkisson reports:
A newly-released government email indicates that within hours of the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on Americans in Benghazi, Libya; the State Department had already concluded with certainty that the Islamic militia terrorist group Ansar al Sharia was to blame.

The private, internal communication directly contradicts the message that President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice and White House press secretary Jay Carney repeated publicly over the course of the next several weeks. They often maintained that an anti-Islamic YouTube video inspired a spontaneous demonstration that escalated into violence.

The email is entitled “Libya update from Beth Jones. ” Jones was then-Assistant Secretary of State to Hillary Clinton. According to the email, Jones spoke to Libya’s Ambassador at 9:45am on Sept. 12, 2012 following the attacks.

“When [the Libyan Ambassador] said his government suspected that former Qaddafi regime elements carried out the attacks, I told him the group that conducted the attacks—Ansar Al Sharia—is affiliated with Islamic extremists,” Jones reports in the email.
Watergate taught us that White House coverups never work. But the arrogant hyperpartisans in the Obama administration decided that lesson didn't apply to them. They might just be wrong. Here's hoping.


And another strand of the web breaks. USA Today reports:
WASHINGTON — U.S. military personnel knew early on that the Benghazi attack was a "hostile action" and not a protest gone awry, according to a retired general who served at U.S. Africa Command's headquarters in Germany during the attack.

While the exact nature of the attack was not clear from the start, "what we did know early on was that this was a hostile action," retired Air Force brigadier general Robert Lovell said in his prepared statement Thursday morning to members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. "This was no demonstration gone terribly awry."

Lovell's testimony contradicts the story that the Obama administration gave in the early days following the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on the U.S. Consulate that left four Americans dead, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

Back then the administration insisted that the best intelligence it had from CIA and other officials indicated that the attack was a protest against an anti-Islam video that turned violent.

Lovell's testimony is the first from a member of the military who was at Africa Command at the time of the attack. Lovell was deputy director for intelligence at Africa Command.

Lovell did not question the Pentagon claim that it could not have scrambled forces in the region quickly enough to have prevented the deaths of the Americans. Lovell said no one at the time of the attack knew how long it would go, so they could not have determined then that there was no use in trying.

"As the attack was ongoing, it was unclear whether it was an attempted kidnapping, rescue, recovery, protracted hostile engagement or any or all of the above," Lovell said.

While people on the ground were fighting for their lives, discussions among U.S. leaders outside Libya "churned on about what we should do," but the military waited for a request for assistance from the State Department, Lovell said.

There were questions about whether the U.S. military could have responded to Benghazi in time, but "we should have tried," Lovell said.
Hmmm. Why didn't the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issue a "request for assistance from the State Department?" Why didn't the president insist on one? For that matter, why didn't the military ask for one?

“Dude, this was like two years ago.” Don't even ask, it's way too partisan.