« | »

State Dept: We Didn’t Blame Attack On Video

From the Associated Press:

US officials: We didn’t link Libya attack to video

By BRADLEY KLAPPER and LARRY MARGASAK | Tues October 9, 2012

WASHINGTON (AP) — The State Department said Tuesday it never concluded that the consulate attack in Libya stemmed from protests over an American-made video ridiculing Islam, raising further questions about why the Obama administration used that explanation for more than a week after assailants killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans…

Briefing reporters ahead of a hotly anticipated congressional hearing Wednesday, State Department officials provided their most detailed rundown of how a peaceful day in Benghazi devolved into a sustained attack that involved multiple groups of men armed with weapons such as machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars over an expanse of more than a mile.

But asked about the administration’s initial — and since retracted — explanation linking the violence to protests over an anti-Muslim video circulating on the Internet, one official said, "That was not our conclusion." He called it a question for "others" to answer, without specifying.

Which would seem to suggest that this lie originated from the White House.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to speak publicly on the matter, and provided no evidence that might suggest a case of spontaneous violence or angry protests that went too far

So this was actually not a "briefing" at all. So why did the AP call it a "briefing"?

The attack has become a major issue in the presidential campaign, featuring prominently in Republican candidate Mitt Romney’s latest foreign policy address on Monday. He called it an example of President Barack Obama’s weakness in foreign policy matters, noting: "As the administration has finally conceded, these attacks were the deliberate work of terrorists."

The administration counters that it has provided its best intelligence on the attack, and that it refined its explanation as more information came to light.

The trouble is there does not seem to be any source for the claim that the attack started out as a protest, as the administration and its flacks claimed.

But five days after the attack, Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, gave a series of interviews saying the administration believed the violence was unplanned and that extremists with heavier weapons "hijacked" the protest and turned it into an outright attack…

Alongside defining the nature of the Benghazi attack, Congress is looking into whether adequate security was in place.

According to an email obtained Tuesday by the AP, the top State Department security official in Libya told a congressional investigator that he had argued unsuccessfully for more security in the weeks before Ambassador Chris Stevens, a State Department computer specialist and two former Navy SEALs were killed. But department officials instead wanted to "normalize operations and reduce security resources," he wrote.

After all, what is more important. Normalizing operations or providing security for our personel?

Eric Nordstrom, who was the regional security officer in Libya, also referenced a State Department document detailing 230 security incidents in Libya between June 2011 and July 2012 that demonstrated the danger there to Americans

Nordstrom said the incidents demonstrated that security in Libya was fragile and could degrade quickly. He added that Libya was "certainly not an environment where (the diplomatic) post would be directed to ‘normalize’ operations and reduce security resources in accordance with an artificial time table."

Nordstrom also said diplomats in Libya were told not to request an extension of a 16-member special operations military team that left in August, according to an official of the Oversight panel. The official was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and thus spoke only on the condition of anonymity.

The State Department has said it never received a request to extend the military team beyond August, and added that its members were replaced with a security team that had the same skills

The State Department seems to have a lot of shameless liars.

But the Washington Post reminds us of the important thing here:

Benghazi attack may cloud Clinton’s legacy

By Anne Gearan | Tues October 9, 2012

The fatal attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Libya last month has become a test of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s leadership and a threat to her much-admired legacy as America’s top diplomat just a few months before she plans to step down.

"Her much-admired legacy"? What has Mrs. Clinton done as Secretary Of State that deserves admiration? Name one thing.

Of course, this same question could be asked about her entire career, as well.

Clinton was among the first Obama administration officials to publicly condemn the attack and mourn the deaths of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. But as the State Department has weathered Republican-led criticism that it misread warning signs before the Sept. 11 attack, Clinton has been far less visible.

Clinton will not appear at a Wednesday oversight hearing on the Libya attack, where House Republicans have said they will question the State Department’s security preparations and the administration’s account of the attack. The State Department will instead send a trusted career diplomat along with three security officials

Clinton has made no public mention of the attack or investigation since Oct. 3. She has no public speaking events on her schedule this week. A trusted Clinton confidant who is the chief protector of her image is reviewing all media inquiries related to the attack.

So you know he’ll get to the bottom of things.

“It did happen on her watch, so is the secretary responsible? The secretary is always responsible,” said P.J. Crowley, a former assistant secretary of state for public affairs under Clinton and now a professor at George Washington University.

"You’ve gotta look at this in the full picture. It’s a tragedy that happened on her watch, but I don’t think it will diminish what is a very significant record,” Crowley said

"Significant record" of what? Racking up more airline miles than any Secretary Of State in history?

Frequently touted as a Democratic presidential candidate in 2016, Clinton plans to step down this year after a tenure that has made her among the most-traveled and most respected American diplomats. Her approval ratings in national polls hover around 70 percent, making her more popular than Obama.

But the deaths in Benghazi have opened Clinton up to the charge that her department should have done more to safeguard diplomats from militants in an increasingly violent country

The simple truth is, if Mrs. Clinton were a Republican the news media would have hounded her from office by now.

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Wednesday, October 10th, 2012. Comments are currently closed.

4 Responses to “State Dept: We Didn’t Blame Attack On Video”

  1. GetBackJack

    Isn’t this how one spontaneously bursts into flames?

  2. Right of the People

    This damned Obummer administration, they can’t even get their lies straight. I’ve lost all respect for them. (sarcasm off now).

  3. Crapgame13

    People died, Obama lied

  4. Chrispbass

    The Dem’s chairwoman last night was trying to defend the BS I mean story that went out from the WH after the ___ hit the fan.
    Nothing but finger pointing at Romney for being un-American and being a meanie by taking advantage of the unfortunate, completely unforeseeable, deaths of Americans. I think the guy grilling her was Piers on CNN (I really don’t know, I was looking for the VP debate and just scanning the TV {oops wrong date…at least I didn’t miss the debate}.
    It was like watching a tennis match between a machine gun and and a mosquito. The dude would NOT let her spin her BS and she was flustered, trying to remain calm. Hilarious but also completely telling of the sewer flowing from the WH. The poor woman having to sit there and repeat the party line while someone just pounds her face. HA!

    1. Lie about situation
    2. Blame someone else
    3. Avoid apology, or even say what really happened, by pointing finger @ meanie who is looking for truth (who also happens to be the enemy – BONUS POINTS!)
    4. Wait for media to focus on how mean people are for questioning lies about the job report.
    5. Tuesday




« Front Page | To Top
« | »