« | »

Officials On Benghazi: We’re Inept, Not Malicious

From Sharyl Attkisson at CBS News:

Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice"

By Sharyl Attkisson | May 17, 2013

Obama administration officials who were in key positions on Sept. 11, 2012, acknowledge that a range of mistakes were made the night of the attacks on the U.S. missions in Benghazi, and in messaging to Congress and the public in the aftermath.

It looks like Sharyl Attkisson may have been taken to the woodshed by CBS News President Dan Rhodes (brother of the top Obama advisor, Ben Rhodes).

The officials spoke to CBS News in a series of interviews and communications under the condition of anonymity so that they could be more frank in their assessments.

Yes, they are being brutally ‘frank’ when they forgive themselves of everything. (And this from the most transparent administration in US history.)

They do not all agree on the list of mistakes and it’s important to note that they universally claim that any errors or missteps did not cost lives and reflect "incompetence rather than malice or cover up."

The failure to provide adequate security didn’t cost lives? At the very least it was negligent homicide.

Nonetheless, in the eight months since the attacks, this is the most sweeping and detailed discussion by key players of what might have been done differently.

Let’s hope that Ms. Attkisson isn’t buying their excuses, concocted more than eight months after the fact, and given under the condition of anonymity, that Benghazi was the result of mistakes and not politics. In fact, the way the IRS scandal was covered up to get past the election just goes to show that the same thing was done with Benghazi.

Notice that in this whole article they seem to admit that the only thing they would have done differently would have been be to send in the FEST rescue teams. Which is quite an admission. But they never comment on the failure to provide security in the first place.

"We’re portrayed by Republicans as either being lying or idiots," said one Obama administration official who was part of the Benghazi response. "It’s actually closer to us being idiots."

Notice that the defense of Obama and his henchmen always boils down to: ‘we are not evil, just incompetent.’ How many times have they used that excuse now? Fast & Furious, the AP phone records, the IRS suppression of the Tea Party…

In fact, the problem is the White House are all too competent at these sort of things. They managed to push Benghazi (and the IRS scandals) past the elections. Which was exactly their intentions. But of course it’s easy when you have the news media on your side.

The Obama administration’s chief critics on Benghazi, such as Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., remain skeptical… "There is no conclusion a reasonable person could reach other than that for a couple of weeks after the attack, [the Obama administration was] trying to push a narrative that was politically beneficial to the president’s re-election," Graham told CBS News.

The list of mea culpas by Obama administration officials involved in the Benghazi response and aftermath include: standing down the counterterrorism Foreign Emergency Support Team (FEST), failing to convene the Counterterrorism Security Group, failing to release the disputed Benghazi "talking points" when Congress asked for them, and using the word "spontaneous" while avoiding the word "terrorism." …

None of these things are a matter of simple ‘mistakes.’ They were all coldly calculated to help Obama get re-elected.

With U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens reported missing shortly after the Benghazi attacks began, Washington officials were operating under a possible hostage scenario at the outset. Yet deployment of the counterterrorism experts on the FEST was ruled out from the start. That decision became a source of great internal dissent and the cause of puzzlement to some outsiders.

Thursday, an administration official who was part of the Benghazi response told CBS News: "I wish we’d sent [FEST]." …

Ms. Attkisson goes through the rest of the aforementioned list: "failing to convene the Counterterrorism Security Group, failing to release the Benghazi "talking points" when Congress asked for them, and using the word "spontaneous" while avoiding the word "terrorism." And she gives the anonymous Obama administration officials’ excuses for each of their failures.

Here is their (unconvincing) excuse for editing out all mention of ‘terrorism’ from the talking points and public pronouncements:

Several Obama administration officials said not using the word "terrorism" early on was not part of a conspiracy, but an "abundance of caution." They reiterate that any misjudgments or mistakes in the Benghazi response and aftermath would not have changed the outcome.

Really? How about the outcome of the elections, which is all they really cared about?

Critics nonetheless see a pattern that points to a cover up. "Incompetence and malice are not mutually exclusive," said Graham. "The storyline they chose to convey for a couple of weeks was politically the most beneficial one that could be told about Benghazi, and it’s no accident that story line was chosen."

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said, "If not for Congress, they would still lead us to believe it was a video gone awry." …

That is an excellent point. God knows our news media wouldn’t have uncovered their lies. Apart from Ms. Attkisson and Fox News, they were doing everything they could to cover up Benghazi.

This article was posted by Steve on Monday, May 20th, 2013. Comments are currently closed.

2 Responses to “Officials On Benghazi: We’re Inept, Not Malicious”

  1. GetBackJack says:

    After all, it would seem exceptionally bad to beat a dog who is incompetent at guard duty.

  2. Liberals Demise says:

    So that makes it ok to lie to the American people for weeks on end.
    Deflect this on others as their fault and or this was of no importance.
    SideshObama really is human waste and a effing LIAR!

« Front Page | To Top
« | »