Benghazi Is a Political Circus

0
Share

obama2

Forty-six percent of the voting public believe that President Obama is engaged in a cover up of the events in Benghazi but President Obama is confused as to why people believe that.

At a joint press conference on May 13 with PM David Cameron, President Obama angrily said there is no there there when responding to a question about Benghazi and the Talking Points.

There is nothing new to the story, he claims. His argument is that the Talking Points memos weren’t leaked sooner so they shouldn’t be a big deal now. It’s old news and it is therefore not news.

He said the discussion of the Talking Points is a political sideshow.

In the way of a defense, President Obama said he referred to Benghazi as an act of terror in his Rose Garden speech and therefore there was no cover up.

An act of terror is very different from terrorism and an al Qaeda attack. Use of the words act of terror plays down the seriousness of the event.

The attack on Benghazi in which a US Ambassador died occurred at the height of the 2012 presidential campaign. President Obama’s campaign focused on the death of Osama bin Laden and the decimation of al Qaeda. This was to be his success story and the reason why the American people should vote him back into office.

President Obama primarily used the Rose Garden speech to describe the attack as an anti-video protest gone awry, not as an act of terror. He avoided calling it terrorism when questioned during that speech.

Days later while appearing on The View, Obama told Joy Behar that it was too early to tell if it was an act of terrorism.

President Obama and Hillary Clinton described it as an anti-video protest in an ad shown in Pakistan, an ad which caused riots in Pakistan.

President Obama described the attack as an errant anti-video protest for weeks on talk shows and even to the UN. He did this even though it was known the night of the attack that it was a terror attack by an al Qaeda affiliate – Ansar al-Shariah.

Obama did this even though the Talking Points drawn up by the intelligence community described the attack as a terror attack by Ansar al-Shariah.

We still don’t know where the video protest idea came from.

President Obama believes that the emails being discussed were available to the House months ago and nothing happened, so why is it a problem now?

The fact is that the emails were only given to one committee to review and were not to be shared or discussed. The committee was not allowed to keep the emails or copy them.

Moreover, the committee is a covert committee, in other words, they get to view top secret, confidential information. We now know that the emails were not top secret and were only being kept secret as part of a cover up.

President Obama said he sent Matt Olsen, Director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), to The Hill to testify.

Matt Olsen was in fact called to The Hill by the House, not sent. Olsen described the event as a terror attack in response to a question, not as part of his testimony.

It created a furor at the time because it was the first time it was described as a terror attack. In fact, it was said that Matt Olsen got his hand slapped for his honesty.

The President said today that his Daily Briefs matched up to what Susan Rice said on the Sunday talk shows. If that is true, who wrote these DB’s and why didn’t they match up to what was said on the ground? We know what was said on the ground from the testimony of Mr. Thompson and Mr. Hicks.

President Obama made reference to the ARB report he commissioned. The ARB investigation led by Pickering and Mullins did not include interviews with key people like Mr. Hicks, Mr. Thompson, Mrs. Clinton and others whose testimony was considered pertinent, putting doubt on the legitimacy of their report. The scope of their report was limited and they did not make the testimony of some witnesses available to the House committees.

The ARB report found problems with the State Department but they found no one culpable. They didn’t interview Hillary Clinton as the head of the State Department and they did not find her guilty of poor performance even though she was ultimately responsible.

President Obama’s response to a question on Benghazi during the May 13, 2013 press conference:

Share