October 11, 2012

Even if Obama thought first — or even only — about reelection, how could he have chosen to lie the way he did about Libya?

Mark Steyn writes:
The State Department has now conceded that there was no movie protest at all. and that it was, in fact, one of the most sophisticated military attacks ever launched at a diplomatic facilityBoth these very obvious points were surely known to Washington by 6 a.m. Eastern on Wednesday September 12, by which time the surviving consulate staff had been evacuated to Tripoli. Yet Ambassador Rice, President Obama, et al., were still blaming the video days later. Obama and Secretary Clinton always refer to Ambassador Stevens as “Chris” — Chris this, Chris that — as if he were a treasured friend or intimate. Yet they and the sad hollow men around them dishonor their “friend” in death.
Quite aside from the wrongness of lying, generally and specifically, in this case, and quite aside from the motivation to lie — I'm going to presume, without more, it was campaign politics — why did Obama think he could get away with this lie long enough, and why was he not daunted by the risk entailed in going on and on, doubling down on the lie, and even lying in a U.N. speech? How did he have the nerve to co-opt our U.N. ambassador, Susan Rice, and subvert her credibility and honor? How did he get this millstone around the neck of Hillary Clinton, who has such a strong interest in her independent career and who knows a thing or two about the devastation of getting caught lying? (And this lie can't be waved away as as lie "about sex." It's a lie at the very heart of our trust in the President.)

Now, I have a few more questions, focusing on the choice to construct the lie out of that "Innocence of Muslims" video. Here's a montage of statements that were made about the video:
OBAMA:  I don't care how offensive this video was, it was terribly offensive and we should shun it.

HILLARY:  This video is disgusting and reprehensible.  It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose, to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage.

CARNEY:  Let's be clear.  These protests were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region.

OBAMA:  You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy character, an extremely offensive video.

CARNEY:  The unrest we've seen has been in reaction to a video.

OBAMA:  A crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.

RICE:  It was a spontaneous, not a premeditated response, a direct result of a heinous and offensive video.

OBAMA:  I know there are some who ask, "Why don't we just ban such a video?"  The answer is enshrined in our laws.  Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.
Was this just the nearest lame excuse, like the dog ate my homework? The President must have known that the truth about the attack on the embassy would eventually emerge. He couldn't have assumed that those called to testify in congressional hearings would commit perjury. Even if everyone would be willing to commit perjury, how could they think they could credibly pull off lies about protests — vivid public events — that never took place? Maybe Obama's only concern was that the truth not emerge before the election, but given the risk that it would, why wasn't he afraid of how bizarre and outrageous the video story was?

The video story, moreover, put Obama in a position where he had to present caring for the feelings of violent foreigners as something that challenges our commitment to free speech, as if it were a difficult matter to brood over. He made it sound as though he would ban the video — or take the proposal to ban it seriously — if only the Constitution didn't stand in his way. Was he interested in making a show of respect for constitutional law? It didn't come off as too respectful, especially when they arrested the filmmaker (who was, conveniently, on parole and thus arrestable). This was the worst sort of scapegoating. Obama called this man — this erstwhile nonentity — "a shadowy character."

And this inane and unnecessary display of concern for the feelings of Muslims depended on thinking about Muslims as a bunch of idiots and criminals. It wasn't respectful at all to promote this caricature of Muslims as people who look at a stupid video and lose their minds, take to the streets, and work themselves up into a murderous rage. The video story could only work as a cover for the truth if it could be leveraged on an offensive stereotype of Muslims. It is the story about the response to the video — far more the video itself — that has "a deeply cynical purpose, to denigrate a great religion"! Why didn't Obama care that he was insulting Muslims in this weird charade about caring for Muslims?

Why was any of this worth doing, even cynically? Even if you assume Obama put his own reelection first, how could he possibly have selected this lie and thought it was a good idea? Yes, the planned terrorist attack in Libya hurts the image he would like to have as the vanquisher of al Qaeda, but the truth about that has already come out, with 3 weeks left to go before the election. By handling the matter the way he did, we have — on top of the damage to the vanquisher of al Qaeda image — a glaring lie and plain evidence of extremely poor judgment.

346 comments:

1 – 200 of 346   Newer›   Newest»
AJ Lynch said...

Althouse - Obama is an arrogant dope. Repeat after me....Obama is an arrogant dope.

AReasonableMan said...

There is no evidence that Obama was lying. He wasn't in Libya. All the information he received was third or fourth hand.

This is just a ridiculous post.

Jay said...

AReasonableMan said...
There is no evidence that Obama was lying. He wasn't in Libya.


HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA

OMG

HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA

you can't make that level of stupid up, folks!

ndspinelli said...

Hell, We have a nurse here who still believes it. Thankfully she's no longer practicing.

Jay said...

AReasonableMan said...
There is no evidence that Obama was lying. He wasn't in Libya.


Hey, remember when Bush & Cheney weren't in Iraq and you said there was no evidence of them lying about WMD's?

Me too!

Quayle said...

This is the end of every weasel-worder.

Each carefully spun tale becomes a platform for the next, until they reach too far and the entire fa├žade collapses.

And this collapse seems to involve the main stream NY-DC echo-chamber press as well.

Fascinating times, these.

Bob Ellison said...

Your questions are interesting. I assume the following:

1) Obama is an atheist. Not an agnostic. He doesn't think there is any judgement in the afterlife. So he can do whatever he wants in this life, and it won't matter.

2) Many other such lies have been successful. FDR pulled us out of the Great Depression; Republicans opposed civil rights for blacks; Nixon was a right-winger. History shows Obama, if he reads it on occasion, that leftist lies can work.

3) George W. Bush kicked off the "inane and unnecessary display of concern for the feelings of Muslims", as you put it, with his stupid statement that Islam is a religion of peace. It is not. Obama's just taking the ball forward on that.

chickelit said...

There's a lot of sifting and winnowing in Congress these days to counter all the shifting and whining elsewhere in DC. Of this we should all be proud.

"If Government can't control itself, another Government will"

Jay said...

Why was any of this worth doing, even cynically?

Is this supposed to be a serious question about a Senator who stood in front of a black audience and told them the government didn't waive the Stafford Act for hurricane relief funds after voting against waiving said act and said funds already being sent with no Stafford Act requirements?

Curious George said...

"How did he have the nerve to coopt our U.N. Ambassador, Susan Rice, and subvert her credibility and honor?"

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Susan Rice was not "coopted(sic)" She is just one of Obama's political whores.

As for the rest, he has gotten away with lies and been protected by the press since he came on the national scene. Why wouldn't he think this would work?

The latest gambit, blaming it on the intelligence community, is really going to blow up in his face. Just watch.

Bob Ellison said...

AReasonableMan, Obama was obviously lying. Get used to it. He does it a lot. You might have to sit down.

Shouting Thomas said...

Why did he think he could get away with it?

Because he still is getting away with it?

This story is not "above the fold" in this morning's online edition of The NY Times!

Bill O'Reilly led with this story last night. You know, that crummy, crazy Faux Noise cable station that panders to the yahoos?

Curious George said...

"AReasonableMan said...
There is no evidence that Obama was lying. He wasn't in Libya. All the information he received was third or fourth hand."

This is garage mahal stupid.

Shouting Thomas said...

A deeper question:

Why has the Obama admin been laying the groundwork here for some degree of sympathy toward the Jihadi's demand for implementation (or at least respect for) anti-blasphemy laws in accordance with Sharia law?

NitneLiun said...

Obama knew withing 24 hours that the attack was premeditated and coordinated. Everything after the day after the attack was a lie.

garage mahal said...

Well if Mark Steyn says it's a lie that's good enough for me!

damikesc said...

There is no evidence that Obama was lying. He wasn't in Libya. All the information he received was third or fourth hand.

They KNEW it wasn't a protest the day of the attack BASED on the intel reports provided.

What basis did Obama have to claim it WAS in response to the video? How would that claim be reasonable?

Darrell said...

Why did Obama think he could get away with the lies? It's because we have a Media that is locked in to the ideology of one political party--his. It would have never been considered otherwise. Obama carries the entire responsibility for the lies because he knew the truth within hours. If the truth was withheld from him, then he bears the responsibility of surrounding himself with liars and incompetents. Now how did they have the lie and all that went with it within minutes (hours) of the events? Was this all part of a preconceived fallback plan if a terrorist attack on American soil happened before the general election? The questions haven't even begun to be asked.

Jason Keenan said...

But wait! ... What about ladyparts???? And didn't someone Romney once knew say something racist ten years ago???? Let's talk about the real issues!!

Good thing the prof knows better ... er ...

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/09/just-how-racist-is-obama-phone-video.html

Today's post was excellent, which makes the Obamaphone post all the more absurd in its focus on the ultra-trivial, ever-present "racist GOP" meme.

damikesc said...

Well if Mark Steyn says it's a lie that's good enough for me!

The only evidence that bolsters Obama's case that he was telling the truth is State says he was lying now. And that's if one assumes every word uttered by State is false.

There were NO protests that night. At all. This isn't "We assumed Hussein wasn't bluffing about WMD". This is something we knew was false immediately --- and Obama STILL peddled the lie.

X said...

it works on garage, allie, and an unreasoning man because you can fool dumb of the people all of the time.

mc said...

And the confidence and certainty of conference calling everyone but Fox?

The clear coordination with the fourth estate to continue the lies and dissembling.

The arrogance of it all is nauseating.

Tar and Feathers. Pitch forks and torches.

Start with the Journolisters.

SteveR said...

Decisions made by Obama are always political (Valerie, Axelrod, et al) and in this case it seems to make no sense but that's how they think, that's the instinct.

That also means they assume the media will cover for them, one way or another, and that a majority of Americans won't catch on.

TWM said...

Liars lie. Obama's whole life is a lie so what's one more.

What's pathetic is people like "A Reasonable Man" aren't willing to admit it was a lie. A trail of them really. Following the political incompetence of this administration - specifically the State Department - which resulte in dead Americans, who had repeatedly asked for help.

As to Rice losing any honor, one has to suppose she had any in the first place.

Hillary should resign now. Rice,too, along with anyone in the chain of command that abadoned this people.

Obama? Well, he won't resign, but if he gets relected and the GOP manages to win both the House and Senate maybe we can work on an impeachment.

Here's hoping he loses and we don't have to deal with that whole mess.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Asshole libs, as the Daily Caller is proving Obama was (we all know by now he is with more proof by the minute) lie all the time:

They care about the poor and Republicans don't is an evil lie libs repeat daily.

Republicans are racist is an evil lie libs repeat daily.

Republicans are waging war against women is a lie libs repeat daily.

The libs to which I refer are elected, berserk-by/of/for-power libs, not cranky commentators like me who think differently. And they will lie until they die; it's what they do and who they are.

Let us hope those realizing just now the evil which surrounds them are strong enough to stand athwart these evil libs, right behind Sarah Palin in the fight for liberty.

Purvi Rajani said...

Obama has been pretty consistent about lying to serve his political purposes. You saw his 2007 video where he lied to a black audience to make them feel discriminated against by the US Government. I have a feeling we might see a post from you soon on "how Oabma lost me" that references that ver video.

Obama is the most dishonest and corrupt POTUS in history. Too bad the media won't do its job.

David said...

I think you have to ask what else was being covered up.

Early on, I wondered what the ambassador and officials at the consulate thought of the security support they were getting. We now have the answer for the lower officials. They were requesting more security and not getting it.

We have no information on whether Ambassador Stevens chimed in on this issue. His personal and direct expression of concern would not alter the fact that the mission was denied the extra security it requested, but it would put a more dramatic stamp on it.

Also, Carney and others have been careful to say there was no "actionable" intelligence suggesting a possible raid on the consulate. Was there intelligence that they did not deem "actionable?"

And what of the immediate response to the raid? Was Obama really as disengaged in response planning as his trip to Las Vegas suggests? More disengaged?

When the response is this puzzling, it could be bad judgment. It could also be that there is still more than meets the eye.

garage mahal said...

It turns out these genius Republicans revealed a CIA operation at their stupid hearings yesterday trying to embarrass Obama before the election. Glad the adults are in charge!

Tank said...

AA:

... why did Obama think he could get away with this lie long enough, and why was he not daunted by the risk entailed in going on and on, doubling down on the lie, and even lying in a U.N. speech? How did he have the nerve to coopt our U.N. ambassador, Susan Rice, and subvert her credibility and honor? How did he get this millstone around the neck of Hillary Clinton, who has such a strong interest in her independent career and who knows a thing or two about the devastation of getting caught lying?

Um, because he is an egomaniac and a friggin con man. He lies every single day, and rarely ever gets called out by anyone. This did not occur to him [that it was a lie}. His whole friggin life is lie. This is just one more "how do I sweep this under the rug" moment, except, maybe not. As ST pointed out, this is not even really on the front page of the Times. They are trying to hide it with an innocuous blurb [this was once a great newspaper - now, oy].

PS: ReasonableMan goes for the gold in stupidist comments ever. I mean:

Cue Jay: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

AprilApple said...

The entire Obama propaganda brigade insisted it was all due to that obscure home-made video THAT NOBODY WATCHED. We all knew it, too.

I'm sure these radical Islamists have time to sit in front of their lap tops each morning with coffee.

It was the anniversary of 9/11. 9/11 the most successful terrorist attack in modern history and the requests for more security, made by our people on the ground in Libya, were ignored by Hillary Clinton’s smug State Dept. Obama had time to ignore the 3 AM phone call and jet of to Las Vegas for funding.

It's time to throw this bunch of incompetents out. Carney - Obama - Jarrett - Holder - Susan Rice - these people have blood on their hands.

The coordinated manner the Obama administration insisted it was all due to “the video” was the most absurd pile of crap. And the media didn’t ask questions. Now look at Carney and his spin to the press. Pathetic . No word from the media on the arrest of a private American citizen in the middle of the night. The image used by the Obama administration as a scapegoat and apology to the animals that killed 4 of our people. So much for defending free speech.
And that weird statement by Obama at the UN. "The future does not belong to those who insult Islam"
WTF.
Again - if there is justice in the world, these self-center re-set button incompetent fools will be fired in Nov.

traditionalguy said...

Surrendering to the Saudis' Al Qaeda branch of Islam is his only skill set.

Then he can get back to lying about everything he is doing to destroy us economically.

But if there had been another 9/11 attack, then he would have had to react with force, and Obama hates the military so much that he refuses to lead it.

Tank said...

Incidentally, nicely summed up the whole situation Annie, really.

Kudos.

TWM said...

"It turns out these genius Republicans revealed a CIA operation at their stupid hearings yesterday trying to embarrass Obama before the election. Glad the adults are in charge!"

This administration doesn't need any help in embarrassing itself.

Neither do you, it seems.

X said...

actually it works for garage because it is a lie and garage loves lies.

Steve Austin said...

Why are we still talking about this in relation to Obama?

The only reason the Libya story should have any reference is by future historians as to event #17 where Romney "lost the election" by his ill informed comments immediately after the attack. At least that's what I think Bloomberg and Reuters told me.

bagoh20 said...

I don't know how anyone can take anything this administration says seriously. Has there ever been a more dishonest administration in this nation's history? They lie even when it's not necessary, even when the truth is better for them than the lie. Even they are so convinced of their own incompetence that they automatically assume the truth is bad for them, and immediately jump to the lie, any lie.
They are even incompetent handling their incompetence.

If the press was actually neutral, this President would be in worse trouble than Nixon at the end, and for good reason. His scandals are far worse. Thanks to those who voted for him, we have a new low standard for everything about the Presidency. Every future bad President can use this one to compare their scandals favorably. Great job, Obama voters - you made history.

Shouting Thomas said...

I'll repeat.

Why is Obama trying to build a case for deference toward Sharia Law re anti-blasphemy?

Why has he carried out this trial run of arresting the video maker, a clear attack on the First Amendment?

mc said...

David is correct.

What on Earth are they deeply glad they have managed to keep us from learning?

AReasonableMan said...

This is truly a sad set of posts. Grown men and women, most with better than average incomes and education, sitting around and concocting conspiracy theories. Idle hands ...

bagoh20 said...

At the next presser, Carney should confront the reporters and ask them: Why didn't you guys do your job and ask me? If you are gonna swallow it, I'll feed you crap all day long.

Hagar said...

Somebody within the US Gov't is playing games in Libya, but it does not follow that the game is organized by Mr. Obama's White House, or even that they are aware of it, nor that the State Department as an entity is behind it.

This administration does not have control of itself.

Matthew Sablan said...

Just because someone thinks something is a good idea does not mean it was. That's my theory.

Tibore said...

I think everyone's missing the point about why Obama said what he did. The point isn't that he maintained a blatant falsehood, the point is that he indulged in it because it fit his worldview: That whenever anyone lashes out in anger, it's America's fault.

I don't care whether he was cynically propagating a deliberate falsehood or if he gullibly, foolishly, but honestly convinced himself that the overlaid narrative was the real core truth. The fact remains that his and his administration's kneejerk opinion was "America's bad".

This is why I will vote against him in the next election.

Sloanasaurus said...

It is obvious that Obama expected the media not to cover the event until after the election. Thus, Obama's ruse would get him through October. But, Obama never counted on the coverage or the congressional hearings that toom place (while Congress was out of session).

Moreover, the anti-muslim film story also explains away why all the Muslims were protesting across the Muslim world. If there was no explanation, then the media would go looking for one, and the only other explanation is that nothing has changed - they still hate us even after 4 years of Obama.

Moreover, I think Obama was trying to cover up what appears to be basic incompetence. Why would you not have security at our embassies in arab countries on the anniversary of 9-11. It seems the most obvious day to have increased secrity. The fact that we did not means Obama does not get the war on terror...


But now the cover-up is way worse than the event. It is clear Obama was trying to cover up incompetence. Moreover, he actually had the man who made the film brought in for questioning in the middle of the night to further the cover-up. That is a gross abuse of state power.

I hope we hear about it all in tonight's debate.

TosaGuy said...

"There is no evidence that Obama was lying. He wasn't in Libya. All the information he received was third or fourth hand."

Then why hasn't Obama fired every single person feeding him "wrong" information?

The Black Hawk Down incident, once it was found out that the troops were denied armored vehicle they had requested, led to the resignation of the Secretary of Defense.

Shouting Thomas said...

This is truly a sad set of posts. Grown men and women, most with better than average incomes and education, sitting around and concocting conspiracy theories. Idle hands ...

And to think that the motto of the left used to be:

"Question Authority!"

Levi Starks said...

At some point, after you've stacked lie upon lie for so long, Telling the truth is no longer an option.
At least Bill Clinton was able to compartmentalize his lies to things that happened in his pants.

AprilApple said...

I want to see Susan Rice grovel and apologize for her deception. I want to see Susan Rice interviewed by a pro-Obama Pro-Democrat Hack media elites (either Brian Williams, Andrea Mitchell, George Stephanopoulos, or Diane Sawyer...et al) and I want Susan Rice to say this.

"I was wrong. The murder of 4 Americans at our embassy in Libya had nothing to do with that obscure video."

Eh. Who am I kidding.
Cowards never fess up.

TWM said...

"This is truly a sad set of posts. Grown men and women, most with better than average incomes and education, sitting around and concocting conspiracy theories. Idle hands ..."

Jesus dude, their story - lie really - is falling apart on national news and you just refuse to believe. There's no theory here anymore, just tons of facts that point to the attempted cover-up of incredible negligence.

This is moving from embarrassing to shameful.

TosaGuy said...

Americans do understand that bad stuff happens in places like Libya and mistakes will be made. That is life. But they don't like the cover up designed to save a politician's hide.

Tank said...

bagoh20 said...

At the next presser, Carney should confront the reporters and ask them: Why didn't you guys do your job and ask me? If you are gonna swallow it, I'll feed you crap all day long.


To be fair, they've been asking, but Carney keeps sticking to his talking points - I think it was O'Reilly showing that last night.

How'd you like to have Carney's job? Man, I could not do that.

penelope said...

A thorough and insightful analysis, Ann, but you fail to mention the other deeply troubling aspect of this whole sorry episode, i.e., the fact that the Administration knew of the danger to our embassy staff in Libya and not only chose to do nothing to protect them but, based on yesterday’s Congressional testimony, inexplicably refused requests for additional security, and might even have withdrawn some of the security forces there. Whether they lied or not, I don’t think it’s at all a stretch to say the Administration has Chris Stevens’ and his three colleagues’ blood on its hands.

Bob Ellison said...

"Grown men and women, most with better than average incomes and education, sitting around and concocting conspiracy theories."

That's an interesting statement. You're probably right about the maturity and average incomes. You are obviously wrong about the conspiracy-theory conjecture. But I doubt you will question it.

Let me try to challenge you, though: where's the conspiracy theory in this case?

Skyler said...

Why would he lie? Why would his fellow travelers lie?

Have you no decency? How can you ask such questions.

We dare not question their patriotism.

No. There was no treason. None at all.

Shouting Thomas said...

Yahoo News has also just about ignored this story.

In fact, they are leading this morning with the story that Romney offended one of the dead Navy Seals' mothers!

Another Romney gaffe!

So, Obama is still getting away with it.

bagoh20 said...

"How'd you like to have Carney's job? Man, I could not do that."

And your family would be watching you do that to the entire country, and every word would be recorded for prosperity coming from your lips. It takes a special kind of ambition and personality, a Supertoady.

Daniel Richwine said...

Who cares if he lied about it? The truth is far, far worse than any lie. A US ambassador murdered because of the administration's policies. Think about that, and tell me why you care if anyone lied about anything.

EDH said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Shouting Thomas said...

And your family would be watching you do that to the entire country, and every word would be recorded for prosperity coming from your lips. It takes a special kind of ambition and personality, a Supertoady.

Except, see my above comments about the NY Times and Yahoo.

My liberal friends on FB are not aware that this story exists.

paminwi said...

This paragraph fro Hot Air sums up things nicely IMO.

"Under these circumstances in earlier and more honorable times, both Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice would have already resigned their posts. That’s especially true in Rice’s case, who got caught pushing a lie that tried to cover up the fact that the US suffered a terrorist attack. Either the lie is hers, in which case resignation is the only possible step, or someone lied to her and used her to push it out to the public, in which case a person of her rank should resign immediately in protest and reveal what happened. The fact that Rice has not resigned as of yet tells us that the latter was not the case, and also tells us all we need to know about her integrity. As for Hillary Clinton, her “legacy” is about to get defined — unless she starts talking about who ordered the cover-up. If not, then we probably know all we need to know about her integrity and legacy as well."

Paul Zrimsek said...

This is truly a sad set of posts. Grown men and women, most with better than average incomes and education, sitting around and concocting conspiracy theories. Idle hands ...

It's nothing but a third-rate burglary!

Prof. A, would this by any chance be the new information that got you down off the fence about the election?

Rustling Leaves said...

Why? Because Obama has never been held accountable for his mistakes. Why should he worry? He was untouchable, always handled with kid gloves, coddled, never questioned.

Unfortuately for Hillary, this event will and should hang around her neck. Her experience as Secretary of State could have been that additional achievement on her resume that propelled her to a deserving victory in 2016. This was no small mistake. She will not be our first female president.

People died, Obama lied.

Pierre said...

And what is hilarious is that several of you folks voted for this set of buffooniacs...Althouse included. Not sure why anyone should take her seriously after her display of seriously bad judgement when she voted for him.

chrisnavin.com said...

I look at it more charitably: I think it's a case of Obama really believing in his special understanding of Muslims.

He was going to unite two vastly different groups (a plurality if not a majority of Americans, and a vast majority of Muslims) with this special understanding and the right people on his team (as usual, he just kind of sits back and leads from behind).

Every fact then has to fit this narrative, so his team is half in the dark, out on Obama's limb, left to fend for itself and going against many others at State. There's politics involved, of course, but it's a microcosm of the administration itself.

After all the hype, you're left with a surprisingly ill-prepared, leading from behind type of guy, who likely thinks he's much better than he is.

J Scott said...

The man has a history of poor judgement. That's all. His initial thought was that it was the video's fault so he went with that. He initially thought that Crowley was racially profiling Pro. Gates, so he went with that. He thought he could just make a speech to turn the tables on the Wright thing and he went with that.

He has incredibly poor judgement and we just need to let him go.

alan markus said...

The conventional wisdom emerged in Washington almost immediately on Wednesday: Mitt Romney's handling of the violence in Egypt and Libya was a disaster.

"The comments were a big mistake, and the decision to double down on them was an even bigger mistake," Steve Schmidt, senior campaign strategist to Sen. John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign, told CBS News. "There are legitimate criticisms to be made but you foreclose on your ability to make them when you try to score easy political points. And the American people, when the country is attacked, whether they're a Republican or Democrat or independent, want to see leaders who have measured responses, not leaders whose first instinct is to try to score political points."


9/13/2012 - example of MSM (CBS) declaring that Romney's chances for election cratered:

How badly did Romney botch response to Libya attack?

Nonapod said...

"This is truly a sad set of posts. Grown men and women, most with better than average incomes and education, sitting around and concocting conspiracy theories. Idle hands ..."

Stunning, willful ignorance like this is precisely why Obama believed he could get away with it. It's human nature. Even when presented with incontrovertible facts there are some people who will still refuse to see the truth.

furious_a said...

There is no evidence that Obama was lying. He wasn't in Libya.

That parsing is...Clintonesque...in its lawyerliness. Bravo! Formidable!

Marshal said...

I think the Professor is evaluating this incorrectly. I don't believe Obama made a conscious effort to mislead, although the rush to judgement and his doubling down on stupid does result from campaign politics. you have to look deeper for the true cause. Obama and the rest of the left accepted the film as the ultimate cause because it fit their worldview.

The left has quite a bit emotionally and politically invested in the belief that all cultures are equal, that there's no meaningful difference between people everywhere. In this view Muslims are Americans in a different place (and without the moral stains), and while there are obviously a few nutty muslims our right-wing nuts are just as bad. Presumably leftists credit the different levels of havoc created to our government and institutions which have more control and are not dominated by the nuts but rather by enlightened folk like themselves.

To maintain this worldview the left must deny that large portions of various muslim countries see America as sufficiently their enemy to justify violence. This fact cannot be reconciled with their worldview, and thus must be denied. And the denial they have developed and been conditioned to accept is that these actions are not based on the natural preferences of the people in these cultures, but rather are responses to American or Western provocations.

AprilApple said...

I see the blind faith/ bad faith worshippers of Obama can't read and comprehend facts.

Obama lied.

Read Ann's post above. Read the whole thing please. Try to understand the facts.
Blaming "republicans" makes you look stupid and foolish.

Who is in charge of our nation? Obama. The man you adore. But I guess you don't have any problem when Obama lies. Astonishing.

chrisnavin.com said...

There's no shame recognizing this guy just isn't that good of a leader. Everyone in the company is wondering what's going on upstairs, time and time again.

David said...

Susan Rice is history, no matter how you slice it. Romney wins, she's out. Obama wins, she's gone by February.

In either case she will get some very nice spot at a university or foundation. She knows too much to be cast adrift.

Darcy said...

Oh, well. He's mostly pragmatic.

Cedarford said...

Apples and oranges.

The attack at the Libyan Consulate had nothing to do with the scumbag Copt refugee's movie.

The attacks and protests at 15 other US embassies from Morocco to Indonesia had everything to do with the defaming the Prophet. And while no deaths resulted, the shady Copt and his mysterious backers DID endanger other Americans away from Benghazi.

Shouting Thomas said...

This little foray into suppression of free speech, which we now know (and I always knew) was completely irrelevant...

It goes without saying that a similar action by a Republican administration would have caused an absolute unending uproar of outrage by the left.

Bob Ellison said...

David, Susan Rice will teach at the John F. Kennedy School of Government "at" Harvard University.

AprilApple said...

OBAMA: I don't care how offensive this video was, it was terribly offensive and we should shun it.

HILLARY: This video is disgusting and reprehensible. It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose, to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage.

CARNEY: Let's be clear. These protests were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region.

OBAMA: You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy character, an extremely offensive video.

CARNEY: The unrest we've seen has been in reaction to a video.

OBAMA: A crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.

RICE: It was a spontaneous, not a premeditated response, a direct result of a heinous and offensive video.

OBAMA: I know there are some who ask, "Why don't we just ban such a video?" The answer is enshrined in our laws. Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.


THE VIDEO. IT WAS A SCAPEGOAT.

Mr. Careny - what did you say?

John Jones said...

Two things: First, you should know by now that Obama has never been called on his cynical game by the media--ever--so it wouldn't have occurred to him and his minions that the press would behave any differently here. You pointed out yourself the gigantic cynicism of his race-baiting demagoguery on the Stafford Act exactly two week after voting against waiving the Stafford Act! The list of things he hasn't been called on is very long--for instance, we know something supposedly real about Romney because of his prep school hair cutting prank, but we don't know who Obama's clients were, or what he studied in college, or how he did, or what he said about Khalid Rafani, etc. Up to now, he had learned that he was untouchable, because he had been untouched by a shameless media establishment. So why would he think the Libya thing would be any different?

Second, why are you still undecided? How can you even consider voting for someone whom you believe to be a race-baiting, dishonest, demagogue?

Nathan Alexander said...

Top-level answer:
Poor judgment.

Deeper levels:
Obama wants to get re-elected. He wants to use his drone strikes (by association: ending of rendition and enhanced interrogation) and having bin Ladin killed on his watch as a FP success, so he claims al Qaida is beaten.

But if al Qaida is beaten, then this attack can't be al Qaida. It has to be something else. So the video becomes a convenient scapegoat.

All Obama has to do is keep this hidden until after the election.

The press had his back to keep the Hampton video hidden from general knowledge.

The press has his back on not covering Fast and Furious. His Dept of Justice does his bidding on stonewalling Fast and Furious, not prosecuting criminals like Corzine who are feeding his campaign, not defending DOMA, etc.

The press covers him by not reporting on his failure to keep promises, spins unemployment and other economic indicators his way, has refused to report on record gas prices at all, much less with the same tone they used in attacking Bush for the same issue.

The press covered for him before he even said anything about the videos by attacking Romney for criticizing the Egypt StateDept twitter apologizing for the video, right?

In fact, maybe that's the answer, no?

The protests hit the Egyptian embassy. The embassy tweets an apology. Romney hammers the Obama administration for the tweet. The press hammers Romney for it, conflating the Libya attack with the Cairo protests.

How could Obama not run with the apparently winning narrative that had been handed him by his Palace Guard media?

Which leads us back to poor judgment, lack of integrity, and a vacuum of leadership.

Robert Cook said...

I'm shocked at this apparent surprise that Washington has lied about something. This is the default practice of every administration.

Obama lies.

Bush lied.

Clinton lied.

Bush lied.

Reagan lied.

Carter lied.

Ford lied.

Nixon lied.

LBJ lied.

Kennedy lied.

And so on and so on.

I don't approve of it, but, as adults, we certainly can't be startled that those who purport to represent us and serve our interests...don't.

This is why we supposedly have a free press...to press these motherfuckers on their skullduggery and lies and squeeze out the truth.

Of course, those who really do reveal the truth are excoriated for it, by Washington, by the press, and by much of the public.We don't, most of us, really want to know the truth, but prefer to soak in the warm bath of reassuring lies that ease our anxieties and reaffirm our biases.

chrisnavin.com said...

Yeah, we get it. You're a socialist, Robert Cook.

AJ Lynch said...

I will go and buy a Phila Inquirer at lunch to see if they reported the hearing testimony on the front page.

Cedarford said...

mc - The arrogance of it all is nauseating.

Tar and Feathers. Pitch forks and torches.

Start with the Journolisters.


That would likely be antisemitic. Though, I guess, if you select carefully, you can cull some goyim from Journolist.

Writ Small said...

If we go on the assumption the administration concocted the movie protest story, my question is why?

Is the idea that Obama had decided he was not going to respond to the provocation of the assassination but was worried that a failure to respond would be used by the Romney campaign as a sign of weakness and therefore Obama created a fiction in which non-response was appropriate?

Shouting Thomas said...

Cookie,

We used to have an opposition press that reported those lies.

The NY Times and Yahoo are suppressing this story to the best of their ability.

They are, in fact, focusing on Romney's "gaffes."

Bob Ellison said...

Robert Cook said "We don't, most of us, really want to know the truth, but prefer to soak in the warm bath of reassuring lies that ease our anxieties and reaffirm our biases."

Actually, many of us want the truth. We really do. Challenge yourself to think that's the case. Think about it. Maybe we're not all as stupid as you think. Maybe leftists are as stupid as I say.

bagoh20 said...

"My liberal friends on FB are not aware that this story exists"

I often watch MSNBC and it's easy to see that if you get your info only from that side of the spectrum, you will know very little and what you do know will likely be backward. I'm not recommending exclusive Fox and right wing sources either, but I can see how some people would know nothing about politics while still considering themselves political junkies. It's quite possible today.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

To accept the truth, that it was a coordinated terrorist attack on a US Embassy, would be to admit that Obama's entire foreign policy of appeasement and 'leading from behind' has been a colossal and utter failure.

So, like a little kid who stole the cookies out of the cookie jar and who is standing there with crumbs on his lips and blames the dog for the theft, Obama blames anyone else who happens to be available and who is unable to defend himself. Or ask the the other useful idiots to fall on their swords for him.

Unfortunately, for Obama, and fortunately for us, the ability of the people to get to the UNFILTERED news and UNFILTERED truth has become available with the advent of the NEW media as opposed to the ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC butt kissing lackeys.

AprilApple said...

Funny - whenever the left get caught in a lie, they roll out the "but you do it too".

30yearProf said...

He's so egotistical, he cannot see (or live) outside his bathroom mirror.

Leadership means caring about others. Obama simply can't do that.

No matter how good he is as a "Robin Hood","bread and circuses gain votes but destroy nations.

Lyssa said...

Why was any of this worth doing, even cynically? Even if you assume Obama put his own reelection first, how could he possibly have selected this lie and thought it was a good idea?

Maybe, to Obama, this wasn't a lie. Think about it - we've certainly seen evidence that the man is not a deep thinker and not willing or able to question his preconceived notions. Perhaps either he was given an accurate version of the facts, and chose (consciously or not) to see them this way because it fit his stereotypes, and no one was brave enough to correct him. Or, perhaps, he was told something different from the truth because his staff believed that he could not work with the actual truth.

I don't know, but these seem plausible.

Pierre said...

Second, why are you still undecided? How can you even consider voting for someone whom you believe to be a race-baiting, dishonest, demagogue?

Seriously Althouse is undecided...??? And folks read her because of what? Her judgement? Intuition? Brilliance? I mean seriously she is no moderate she is a dyed in the wool liberal who may be very smart in one very narrow area but who displays that uncanny knack of intellectuals to get most other things very wrong.

Molly said...

Only Darrell and Aprilapple get to the most obvious explanation: incompetence. In my mind this explains almost every aspect of the Obama administration: lack of job growth, Iran, Russia, fast&furious, even the health care "success". One place it seems to accomplished just what it wanted to, and done so effectively and competently, is supreme court appointments.

I know the incompetence explanation runs contrary to what many Obama opponents would have us believe: it is venality, or a desire to weaken the US, or some idiotic ideology or other. But Occam's razor leads me to "incompetence" as the best explanation.

Tina Trent said...

He naively though he could get away with it.

Think about that. It's terrifying.

Molly said...

Only Darrell and Aprilapple get to the most obvious explanation: incompetence. In my mind this explains almost every aspect of the Obama administration: lack of job growth, Iran, Russia, fast&furious, even the health care "success". One place it seems to accomplished just what it wanted to, and done so effectively and competently, is supreme court appointments.

I know the incompetence explanation runs contrary to what many Obama opponents would have us believe: it is venality, or a desire to weaken the US, or some idiotic ideology or other. But Occam's razor leads me to "incompetence" as the best explanation.

Tina Trent said...

He naively thought he could get away with it.

Think about it. That's the horrifying thing.

furious_a said...

Early on, I wondered what the ambassador and officials at the consulate thought of the security support they were getting. We now have the answer for the lower officials. They were requesting more security and not getting it.

...and yet, per Garage's back-and-fill about budget cuts to State, the White House found the funds to provide consigliere Valerie Jarrett with a full Secret Service detail for her vacation trip to the Vineyard earlier this summer.

exhelodrvr1 said...

He's been lying his entire career, often very obviously, yet people like Ann A keep voting for him, and the media consistently ignores it. WHy wouldn't he think he could get away with it?

Matthew Sablan said...

"To be fair, they've been asking, but Carney keeps sticking to his talking points - I think it was O'Reilly showing that last night."

-- My favorite was Tapper asking if Carney and Obama "shot first and asked questions later," reminiscent of the faux criticism leveled at Romney (who turned out to be right, sort of like he did with London's Olympics.)

Saint Croix said...

Wow. Althouse is on fire! Brilliant.

Saint Croix said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jay said...

garage mahal said...
It turns out these genius Republicans revealed a CIA operation at their stupid hearings yesterday trying to embarrass Obama before the election


You're so silly & full of shit, that your drivel can only be categorized as "mailing it in" at this point.

Shouting Thomas said...

As of this morning, Obama is "getting away with it" in the major media.

They are reporting, mainly (I repeat), that Romney committed another horrible "gaffe" by hurting the feelings of the dead Navy Seal's mom.

Brennan said...

You have presumed they are adults. They are not.

They are extraordinary hacks that road a wave of anti-Bush sentiment all the way to the apex of American politics.

Hagar said...

It seeems to be forgotten in this furore that Libya is an important oil producing country and vital to the supply of Europe.
This most likely has a lot more to do with the war and subsequent happenings in Libya than any "blasphemous videos" or even "the war on terror."

bagoh20 said...

" This is the default practice of every administration."

Oh, OK. Then it's cool. See it's really nothing. Even though this level of lying at possibly treasonous levels is unprecedented, lets move on. See, a new standard is created just like The One promised.

It is freaking cool to be a liberal. You never have to take responsibility. You are only judged by what you do right and on the quality of your lying about what you do wrong, but even if the lying is bad, it's no big thing. Hell, it's just all good. Lets leave it that. Hey, what about those Packers?

TWM said...

Most Americans - certainly the supporters of Obama - are not aware of the depth of this administration's negligence and mendacity surrounding the murder of our ambassador and other brave Americans. And those Obama supporters who are aware just don't care. So, yes, it's not a story that is changing many minds as yet.

But.

When foreign policy is put up front during these next debates millions of Americans who don't know about it will have the whole ugly affair thrust on them and there is no way in hell Barry is going to be able to explain it away.

You think he got his ass kicked in the first debate. Just wait until this house of cards falls down on his head.

garage mahal said...

Actually, many of us want the truth.

Mark Steyn recently made the brilliant observation that Sesame Street leads to terrorist acts like in Libya. The "Sesamization of American foreign policy"

Mark Steyn is a very serious person.

Shouting Thomas said...

Finally, Hagar produces some semblance of an answer to my questions, which were:

1. Why has the Obama admin made this show of deference to Sharia anti-blasphemy law?

2. Why has the Obama admin tested the waters re suppressing the First Amendment rights of this video maker?

Nobody wants to address this besides Hagar?

Strelnikov said...

The bottom line is that Obama is not only not the genius his worshipers would have but is not even very intelligent. His assumption that everyone but him is an idiot is plain for all to see.

John Cunningham said...

Obama lied here because that is what he is--a lifelong liar, and he has mostly gotten away with it. his press stooges are still refusing to adequately cover the Libyan security failures and the clumsy lies trying to cover them up. before the internet, he would be getting away with it.

Jay said...

garage mahal said...

Mark Steyn recently made the brilliant observation that Sesame Street leads to terrorist acts like in Libya.


Steyn said no such thing.

You're so silly & full of shit, that your drivel can only be categorized as "mailing it in" at this point.

Sam L. said...

So, tell us Ms. Ann, are you still undecided on your vote for President next month?

Why did they think they could get away with it? (Names, Les, I need names!) I give you NYT, WaPo, ABC,CBS, NBC, NBC.com (nee MSNBC), CNN, Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Cemocratic Underground, etc.

Icepick said...

It's quite possible Obama still believes this story. After all, he doesn't go to his intelligence briefings, and we have no actual evidence that he reads the reports on his iPad. He SAYS he does but what proof do we have? And we know he can't work an iPhone, so how confident are we in his ability to work an iPad?

Rose said...

Liars lie. It's what he does. And leftist activist lie. It's what he is. It's what Rice is. It's what they do.

Their most dangerous lies are the ones couched in flowery language. Watch what they say, the opposite is always true.

Like "you can't dance around your positions, being President means telling the American people the truth." That statement tells you exactly what Obama is up to.

Meaning, he is dancing around his positions (did it spectacularly during the debate), and he is not, and never has been, telling the American people the truth.

He must be voted out of office before he does any more damage.

Shouting Thomas said...

Mark Steyn recently made the brilliant observation that Sesame Street leads to terrorist acts like in Libya. The "Sesamization of American foreign policy"

He made a much different and more complex argument than that, garage. But, congratulations on transforming that argument into a silly strawman.

Steyn is well equipped to discuss this issue, since he was the subject of a Canada inquisition intended to enforce Sharia anti-blasphemy laws.

Are you in favor of enforcing anti-blasphemy law in the U.S., garage?

Matthew Sablan said...

Maybe he thinks we can't handle the truth.

Lyssa said...

I agree with Shouting T as well - Why did anyone think that they could get away with this? Because they can. I've seen this story in the blogosphere, on sites read by maybe hundreds of people (the large majority of whom were never going to vote for him anyway). I've not seen it on even Fox News; I've not heard it on the radio; I've not seen it in a newspaper (what's a newspaper?) or a major online source.

I've not heard the Romney campaign bring it up. That had better change soon (i.e., tonight, Ryan ought to be all over it), but it won't shock me a bit if it doesn't.

furious_a said...

Robert Cook: And so on and so on.

Yes, but...never before have we had a Press so willingly complicit in advancing/defending/concealing the lies. Well, except for Camelot.

James Graham said...

He was counting on his own Department of Propaganda a/k/a the Main Stream Media.

Unfortunately for O some of them proved not to be lap dogs: CNN, the Daily Beast.

If you've lost Piers Morgan ...

Cedarford said...

Is it just possible that the Obama gang saw the media beating up Romney for saying we shouldn't apologize for a movie...and had an unfortunate brainstorm that if they just lied a bit and went out and said the Movie was the cause of the attack - they basically nailed Romney and sewed up the election??

People are wondering what the root cause if the mass stupidity and loss of credibility was.

Is it possible that the temptation to fuel the media fire against Romney by deceit and trotting out Susan Rice, Hillary, State Dept minons and Obama himself at the UN - was just too great?

Instead the pack of them didn't bury Romney. They stepped in quicksand themselves.

Is it also possible that the strangely subdued Black Messiah at the debate last week was made so by realization it wasn't Romney's Libya debacle - but his??

Just what the Obamites need right before an election. Congress sure it and the country were lied to in a coverup, and are now back to the old "who knew what, and when".

And the dodge "we can't comment on this because the Heroes of the Justice Dept have an ongoing criminal investigation at Benghazi isn't washing.

Which brings up the other big fuckup.

The top secret leaks from the White House staff that "cannot be discussed because Justice is investigating it". (At least until well after the election is over)
Romney in the foreign policy debate if he showcases Obama's lack of credibility on LIbya, can also call out Obama on not taking action to root out and fire the top secret leaker within his White House staff.

Strelnikov said...

One other point, which I have not seen commented upon but which probably has been, is his use of the term "the Prophet of Islam". First, note how all accounts capitalize "Prophet". Second, why use this obscure phrase to refer to Muhummad? Because if Obama had said "Muhummad" he would also have had to say "peace be upon him". And that would have looked bad, indeed.

rhhardin said...

Obama doesn't do consequences.

Consequences are more of a right-wing fringe thing.

Direct action is the leftist plan.

X said...

garage mahal said...

Mark Steyn recently made the brilliant observation that Sesame Street leads to terrorist acts like in Libya.


always lying, as usual. you know how I know garage works for the government? because he says he doesn't.

Patrick said...

I often watch MSNBC and it's easy to see that if you get your info only from that side of the spectrum, you will know very little and what you do know will likely be backward. I'm not recommending exclusive Fox and right wing sources either, but I can see how some people would know nothing about politics while still considering themselves political junkies. It's quite possible today.

Bagoh brings u a good point, one I learned awhile back. Pat Toomey challenged Arlen Spector, I think for the Republican nomination. Not being particularly interested in the race, I ended up reading about it only on NRO. NRO, as you can imagine were Toomey cheerleaders, and wrote lots of positive stuff about his chances. Based on what they wrote, I expected him to win, and was surprised when he lost.

Rely too much on one side for information, you're going to get what you want, which will hide the truth. I think this is the President's problem, or at least one of them.

TWM said...

Don't worry, we have the best people in charge at the State Department (and the UN). They are looking at the terrorist attacks on our embassies with lazer focus.

http://www.sunshinestatesarah.com/2012/10/unbelievable-ambassadorrices-actual.html

Bob Ellison said...

garage mahal, I'm not a big fan of Mark Steyn. I've read one of his books and a lot of his posts. He's a gifted polemicist, but not really my favorite flavor.

Anyway, what does what you said have to do with what I said? Do you want the truth? I'm going all Jack Nicholson here. Seriously, leftists like you seem incapable of handling this truth. Obama lied like a lying liar. It's all over the place. It covers the landscape. Get used to it. You've gotta find a new play against this thing.

Nonapod said...

Yes, it's true. Pretty much every president has lied. Politicians lie. (You could argue about the severity of each lie, and of course most people's political persuasion would color their judgements) but what's more significant is that people are equally informed about each lie. Too many voters step into the voting booth without knowing the facts about these things. It's partially the MSM's fault and partially the voters fault for not expending the energy to inform themselves.

AprilApple said...

Ann's analysis is on target.

"The video story, moreover, put Obama in a position where he had to present caring for the feelings of violent foreigners as something that challenges our commitment to free speech, as if it were a difficult matter to brood over. He made it sound as though he would ban the video — or take the proposal to ban it seriously — if only the Constitution didn't stand in his way. Was he interested in making a show of respect for constitutional law? It didn't come off as too respectful, especially when they arrested the filmmaker (who was, conveniently, on parole and thus arrestable). This was the worst sort of scapegoating. Obama called this man — this erstwhile nonentity — "a shadowy character.""

--Ann Althouse

"A shadowy Character". Think about how creepy that statement is, coming out of the president's mouth. Think about it.

Kelly said...

Why does my daughter lie when she knows darn well she is going to get caught? I think it is a known unknown. Kids lie, politicians lie, for enexplicable reasons. I think we're far enough down the post 911 path that a terrorist incident isn't surprising.

All Obama had to do was be honest about it, give a tough speech, lob a couple of missles, do his reassuring Presidental act, it would have been over. The lack of security could have been pinned on the state department.

As we know now, the entire administration chose to lie. Maybe they thought it would turn out like fast and furious? It took how long for a report to come out on that? Many of the key players refused to cooperate in that case. With Lybia, they were dealing with a different set of people, some military, who have to much honor to lie for the administration. Obama chose poorly.

Patrick said...

Mark Steyn recently made the brilliant observation that Sesame Street leads to terrorist acts like in Libya

Uh, let's have a link for that little assertion.

Shanna said...

I think you have to ask what else was being covered up.

Oh man, I saw a crazy conspiracy theory the other day that answers all the questions. If only I believed in crazy conspiracy theories I could repeat it! Damn.

Jake said...

Maybe President Obama isn't a voracious consumer of intelligence after all?

MayBee said...

Great stuff, Althouse.

Why would Obama continue saying this very week that AlQaeada is on its heels?

(why did he go to bed that night? How could he sleep?)

Richard Dolan said...

Why, asks Ann.

Two thoughts. First, there is an element of the 'fake but accurate' approach here. Accepting as I do that the main motivation was campaign politics, there was also a sense in Team O's fairy tale about the video that derogatory speech about Muslims ought to get people angry, just as derogatory speech about America's various minorities is the worst sin in the lefties' version of hell. So, even though the video had nothing to do with the attack in Benghazi, it was still something that the West in general and the US in particular had to atone for -- a ritual sacrifice was called for, and that's what was extracted.

Second, Team O has an astonishingly condescending view of lesser folks -- the 'clingers' wherever they are, in the US and around the world. Ann suggests that the motives being imputed by Team O to the Muslim masses were insulting and (although she doesn't quite say so) racist. Underlying Team O's view is an upside-down version of the old idea of 'white man's burden' -- it's the West's responsibility, we are at fault, we have to apologize and make things better, etc. It's Kipling as retold in multi-culti metaphor, with the same disdainful view of the Great Unwashed at its core. (And I realize that I'm being a bit unfair to Kipling.)

Greg said...

Maybe he wasn't lying. He slept through the incident as it was happening, skipped intel briefings, and partied in Vegas and other places for a few days collecting money. Maybe incompetence and lack of giving a crap about anything but himself is the real explanation. And being too stupid to realize this lack of awareness might catch up to him. Maybe Reasonable Man is right!

Cedarford said...

Foreign policy grist next week - I would stay clear of who kisses Israel's ass the most sincerely - and go right at Obama's credibility as trustworthy on foreign affairs.

1. Libya lies.
2. Not confirming the hack still in as deputry national security advisor Tom Donilon was the source of the SEAL, SUXNET, and 2nd underwear plot leaks that endangered our allies operatives and US soldiers.
As of today, Donilon still has his full security clearance and title while Eric Holder stalls that investigation.
3. Report that Obama is secretly working with the Mexican government to see how to get illegals in America on ObamaPhones and food stamps, and how to get food stamp money to the families with an anchor baby that went back to Mexico.
4. Telling Dmitri Mevedev that he had ideas on things for Russia, but couldn't talk openly about them for fear of damaging his popularity in the USA before his election.

garage mahal said...

"Uh, let's have a link for that little assertion."

Marinate three generations of Americans in that pabulum and it’s no surprise you wind up with unprotected diplomats dragged to their deaths from their “safe house” in Benghazi. Or as J. Scott Gration, the president’s special envoy to Sudan, said in 2009, in the most explicit Sesamization of American foreign policy: “We’ve got to think about giving out cookies. Kids, countries — they react to gold stars, smiley faces, handshakes . . . ” The butchers of Darfur aren’t blood-drenched machete-wielding genocidal killers but just Cookie Monsters whom we haven’t given enough cookies. I’m not saying there’s a direct line between Bert & Ernie and Barack & Hillary . . . well, actually I am.

Great stuff.

Bob Ellison said...

Very good, garage mahal. You've tied the argument into a nice little knot. Now try to untie it. What's wrong with what Steyn said? Can you pull it apart?

Matthew Sablan said...

... that's called a joke.

Shouting Thomas said...

Yes, it is great stuff, garage.

Jay said...

garage mahal said...
"Uh, let's have a link for that little assertion."


Your reading comprehension is at the level of a 1st grader.

You also have no capacity for embarrassment, obviously.

furious_a said...

If the press was actually neutral, this President would be in worse trouble than Nixon at the end, and for good reason. His scandals are far worse.

Well, yes -- Watergate didn't feature a body count of thousands like Fast&FuriousGate or murdered ambassador and torched embassies like BenghaziGate,

Darrell said...

Unlike Mitt, I loathe Sesame Street. It bears primary responsibility for what the Canadian blogger Binky calls the de-monsterization of childhood — the idea that there are no evil monsters out there at the edges of the map, just shaggy creatures who look a little funny and can sometimes be a bit grouchy about it because people prejudge them until they learn to celebrate diversity and help Cranky the Friendly Monster go recycling. That is not unrelated to the infantilization of our society. Marinate three generations of Americans in that pabulum and it’s no surprise you wind up with unprotected diplomats dragged to their deaths from their “safe house” in Benghazi.

October 6, 2012 4:00 A.M.

Sesame Nation
Big Bird should leave the government nest.
By Mark Steyn

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/329585/sesame-nation-mark-steyn

X said...

imagine that. garage's link doesn't say what he says it said.

Patrick said...

Wow, Garage, you really missed Steyn's point. Try reading it again. I'm pretty sure you can glean the point, even if you disagree.

X said...

it was close enough for government work, right garage.

Darrell said...

In other words, Sesame Street = Leftist "pablum" indoctrination = death of America.

Jay said...

Wow, Garage, you really missed Steyn's point. Try reading it again. I'm pretty sure you can glean the point,

No, no he can't.

See, Steyn used Big Bird & Sesame Street (and the cookie monster!) in an article about the dead Ambassador. So you can only conclude Steyn is arguing that Sesame Street led to the attacks.

And if you don't, you're like a super-duper tea baggin' dummy!

Robert Cook said...

"'This is the default practice of every administration.'

"Oh, OK. Then it's cool. See it's really nothing. Even though this level of lying at possibly treasonous levels is unprecedented, lets move on. See, a new standard is created just like The One promised.

"It is freaking cool to be a liberal. You never have to take responsibility. You are only judged by what you do right and on the quality of your lying about what you do wrong, but even if the lying is bad, it's no big thing. Hell, it's just all good. Lets leave it that. Hey, what about those Packers?"


No wonder you're so wrong about so much, Bagoh, as you read what you want to read, not what was written, and thus completely miss the point.

MayBee said...

What's weird is this all happened just weeks after it started hitting the news Obama doesn't get intelligence briefings.

I almost wonder if someone in Intelligence didn't get that word out, as a warning. Maybe to put some pressure on him to pay attention because things are getting dangerous.

Leland said...

Professor, I think you look too much at the consequences of the discovery of the lie, rather than the consequences of acknowledging the actual events. You do note that acknowledging the attack as being Al Qaeda harms the notion that Al Qaeda has been defeated. But what does it mean for Al Qaeda to continue to exist and be able to attack the US?

Obama and many in his Administration saw Iraq as a complete distraction, which is why our occupation had to end. They see Afghanistan the same way, but it differs slightly. The difference is Afghanistan was a war in which the US was provoked (to the current Administration, Iraq was not a provocation, but a lie on Bush's part). How does one end a "trillion dollar" war in Afghanistan, when not only will it be seen as a US loss, but do so on the heals of a successful Al Qaeda attack on US embassies in Libya, Egypt, Yemen, and Bahrain? And make no mistake, the war needs to end, because it has to be the war that is preventing the recovery of the US economy rather than Keynesian economy policy, right?

With this in mind, which is worse: a lie that can be dismissed as misinformation from underlings or the truth, which might mean a prolonging of the war in Afghanistan and perhaps new fronts in north Africa? I think this was Obama's Administrations motivation for the story. Further, I think it is working. I don't think discovery of the lie, no matter if it leads to the dismissal of Susan Rice, will affect policy in Afghanistan or prolong that war, which I think Obama will end if he is re-elected. I think many in Obama's Administration find that a good outcome.

Keep in mind that none of these people think Obama will lose in November because of his foreign policy. If he loses, it will be (in their minds) because the misunderstanding of the roots of our own economic problems.

mjoyce said...

But you're still planning to, maybe, vote for Barry again, right?

Portia said...

Pierre said:


Seriously Althouse is undecided...??? And folks read her because of what? Her judgement? Intuition? Brilliance?

I actually follow Althouse because of her commenters.

ErnieG said...

@Darrell:"Obama carries the entire responsibility for the lies because he knew the truth within hours. If the truth was withheld from him, then he bears the responsibility of surrounding himself with liars and incompetents."

As they say, first rate people hire first rate people. Second rate people hire third rate people.

MayBee said...

AReasonableMan- do you work for the state department or OFA?

Obviously, you don't have to answer that. But you showed up immediately in Althouse's first Libya post, defending the administration. You didn't and don't like people even questioning the response. You participate in very few other threads.

garage mahal said...

See, Steyn used Big Bird & Sesame Street (and the cookie monster!) in an article about the dead Ambassador.

That's analysis you can only get at the NRO.

Darrell said...

Yeah, from garage you get to hear about the human tragedy when the "Shut Down Wall Street" protestors were being arrested for blocking entry into private workplaces. You get to hear about imaginary rivers of blood and the deafening cries of pain--still imaginary, mind you. In reality we have people waiting for cops padding their retirement taking ten minutes to put the zip ties on sleepy protestors at 7AM with one hand.

Michael said...

Only idiots, Inga and the press believed that well-armed men staged a "spontaneous" attack on the consulate. Any educated person, sentient person, knew that even crazy fucking Muslims don't all have rocket launchers and grenades and machine guns in their closets.

The administration relied on the media to stall this til after the election. Even the media, peopled with poorly educated ideologues, caught on and could not ignore the blatant lie.

Or you could choose gross incompetence in lieu of the lie.

Darrell said...

Sleepy, because they have never gotten up at 7AM in their lives before, unless they were still out from the night before.

edutcher said...

There's also the problem that, admitting the truth, would mean admitting his whole Libya adventure was a mistake.

And the Vainest Human Being On The Planet does not make mistakes.

traditionalguy said...

Surrendering to the Saudis' Al Qaeda branch of Islam is his only skill set.

Maybe it's because of what's inscribed on the ring he wears in place of a wedding band.

Rusty said...

garage mahal said...
"Uh, let's have a link for that little assertion."

Marinate three generations of Americans in that pabulum and it’s no surprise you wind up with unprotected diplomats dragged to their deaths from their “safe house” in Benghazi. Or as J. Scott Gration, the president’s special envoy to Sudan, said in 2009, in the most explicit Sesamization of American foreign policy: “We’ve got to think about giving out cookies. Kids, countries — they react to gold stars, smiley faces, handshakes . . . ” The butchers of Darfur aren’t blood-drenched machete-wielding genocidal killers but just Cookie Monsters whom we haven’t given enough cookies. I’m not saying there’s a direct line between Bert & Ernie and Barack & Hillary . . . well, actually I am.

Great stuff.



Wow!
You really are as dumb as you look.

It is my fervent hope that any issue that results in a physical relation you have with a female of our species take after their mother.

Unknown said...

To answer your actual question: This isn't an all-or-nothing, drop-dead situation. Early and absentee voting is opening all over the country. Every day Obama can hold the story back, another set of people will vote for him because they didn't get the story in time. Every news cycle in every newspaper and TV station that doesn't tell the facts of this sorry tale is more votes for the Obama campaign. Even if it's a total lie, the movie-riot story has given cover to any news outlets who want to help him; cover they badly needed.

And what's the downside? If he gets re-elected, the entire story will get buried by a grateful media, and anyone who wants to make a big fuss over it will get accused of being a sore loser (and threatened with IRS audits). His is a political crime, so even if he loses, he won't face a criminal trial. In the court of political legacy, half the country will adulate him no matter what, and the other half would not have thought any better of him if he had taken the fall by telling the truth.

I agree with the earlier posters, though, that at this point the Obama campaign is so used to a complicit media that they over-estimated how well their firewall would hold. They may well have expected another week or two, which would have made a significant difference.

Cheers
-- perry

edutcher said...

PS Maybe we'll get the truth about our embassy security chief in Yemen, gunned down by Al Qaeda.

Or was that a video, too?

Unknown said...

To answer your actual question: This isn't an all-or-nothing, drop-dead situation. Early and absentee voting is opening all over the country. Every day Obama can hold the story back, another set of people will vote for him because they didn't get the story in time. Every news cycle in every newspaper and TV station that doesn't tell the facts of this sorry tale is more votes for the Obama campaign. Even if it's a total lie, the movie-riot story has given cover to any news outlets who want to help him; cover they badly needed.

And what's the downside? If he gets re-elected, the entire story will get buried by a grateful media, and anyone who wants to make a big fuss over it will get accused of being a sore loser (and threatened with IRS audits). His is a political crime, so even if he loses, he won't face a criminal trial. In the court of political legacy, half the country will adulate him no matter what, and the other half would not have thought any better of him if he had taken the fall by telling the truth.

I agree with the earlier posters, though, that at this point the Obama campaign is so used to a complicit media that they over-estimated how well their firewall would hold. They may well have expected another week or two, which would have made a significant difference.

Cheers
-- perry

Michael said...

Garage: You do not read that to which you link. How fucking bizarre is that.

Michael said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Darrell said...

What "super-secret" CIA mission was blown, garage, by Issa's hearing? That we are monitoring Al Qaeda? Shit! We're screwed now! They'll be on to us.

Jay said...

garage mahal said...

That's analysis you can only get at the NRO.


Note: "We’ve got to think about giving out cookies. Kids, countries — they react to gold stars, smiley faces, handshakes "

You're the fat, drooling kid at the back of the short bus.

chrisnavin.com said...

Leland, that's quite interesting:

Admitting Al-Qaida is still active and gaining ground in Afpak is admitting the reasons we went there are still valid, and will require continued military presence. We are, in Bush's words, in a war on terror.

Admitting that this attack was perpetrated by Al-Qaida in Libya means we're still in a war on terror. It's global and ongoing.

Hence the drone strikes, the surge in Afghanistan, and the continuation of most of Bush's policies, including all kinds of abridgement here at home.

Yet, Obama can admit NONE of this, due to his base, the re-election, and he might well be willing to lie, or at least cover up, to get his way.

Let's talk about the War On Terror. Let's talk about the drone strikes. Let's talk about Al-Qaida. Let's talk about where America is in this war, and what policies the President has put in place and what we're actually doing.

814659a2-986c-11e0-98c3-000bcdca4d7a said...

Obama's Benghazi fairy tale was a "political airbag."

In case of sudden, catastrophic impact, a decoy narrative is inflated as a cushion. Doesn't matter that it's nonsense - just keep your face from hitting the steering wheel.

Sure, the air quickly goes out of the airbag, but the initial injury is avoided -- and in a Feiler Faster world, one hopes to walk away from the crash...

paul a'barge said...

Perhaps because Obama is ... wait for it ... ugly

Pete said...

Darcy: "pragmatic." Yes!

rhhardin said...

depended on thinking about Muslims as a bunch of idiots and criminals

Where are the Muslim protests over Islamic violence.

Especially among American Muslims.

My guess is that intimidation works, in this modern version of organized crime.

Roger J. said...

my take on Benghazi and the confounding statements from the administration: Mr Obama's foreign policy has rested on his assumption that he can placate the jihadis--thus his Cairo speech and response to the video as cause. To do otherwise would refute his claim to have brought AQ under control. Killing BL was no big deal-- BL was never important. The Benghazi operation gave lie to his version of his foreign policy with respect to the Islamic world. His foreign policy in the middle east has failed utterly. Events are now in control of Mr Obama and he has no recourse except to lie.

elkh1 said...

It's the Republican's fault, you know? If they have not taken the House, there would be no hearings. The MSM was as eager as Michelle for my re-election. They covered things up better than I could ever ... They nailed Romney on his "inappropriate" remarks and said nothing about poor Chris and the other three sobs.

Let's be philosophical, when it's time to go, it's time to go. Chris is in a better place, and all that. I am good. But contrary to Sully and Pinch's belief, I can't keep the oceans from rising, the earth from warming. But the dupes believed me.

You don't need to dupe all of the people all of the time, you only need to dupe enough people at the right time.

rhhardin said...

Human rights only appear as a priori rights, thanks to an invention of the West.

Islam doesn't have that yet.

Roger J. said...

I posted my comment before I saw chrisvavins comment. He is on it.

Darrell said...

The sad thing is that if Romney brings up any of this at the next debate, most Americans won't have a clue what he is talking about--since the Mainmeme Media hasn't covered any of it. Sad.

Joe Schmoe said...

Re: Mark Steyn and Sesame Street, it's a long-running continuation of his criticism that the Democratic party is more concerned with stuff like free contraception and doesn't really want to be bothered with the grown-up stuff like terrorism and foreign policy with hostile nations. When they are forced to deal with it, they do stuff like we're seeing now (blaming innocuous filmmakers who don't share their worldview), or put their head in the sand. Steyn summarized this ongoing phenomenon brilliantly in his piece about Howard Dean and the Bike-Path Left.

Charlie said...

Is the guy who made the video still in jail?

Roger J. said...

Charlie: I dont know but he is collateral damage to the operation. No big deal

garage mahal said...

What "super-secret" CIA mission was blown, garage, by Issa's hearing?

They probably didn't talk about that at the hearing, for good reasons? But yes, Issa's circus hearings outed a CIA operation and compound. NO BIGGEE THOUGH.

virgil xenophon said...

Many excellent lines of analysis here--I'll just add as a follow-on that why wouldn't Obama think he could get away with lying and still win the election with his reputation intact? As Unk/Perry argues, lying is CENTRAL to getting re-elected and besides, win or lose, his reputation will remain intact--nay, even grow! Does he not have the finest example one could possibly hope for in the form of William Jefferson Clinton? An impeached President who is regarded as a near demi-god/rock-star by half the country? Impeachment really ruined his reputation, didn't it? Poor guy is now a total social out-cast shunned by one and all, right? RIGHT??

People forget that there is a third factor to Lincoln's aphorism about fooling some of the people all of the time and all some of the time but never all of the people all of the time: namely, that one doesn't have to be limited by that dictum. In Clinton's case--as in the election of Obama, it is simply sufficient to fool "enough of the people enough of the time." The mere fact that current polls show the country still split roughly 50/50 (mas o menos) clearly demonstrates that there are more than enough useful idiots to go around. Obama is plowing fertile ground..

Shouting Thomas said...

They probably didn't talk about that at the hearing, for good reasons? But yes, Issa's circus hearings outed a CIA operation and compound. NO BIGGEE THOUGH.

The NY Times hasn't had a problem with this kind of "outing" when a Republican was president.

MayBee said...

They probably didn't talk about that at the hearing, for good reasons? But yes, Issa's circus hearings outed a CIA operation and compound. NO BIGGEE THOUGH.

His hearings did?

Do you mean the big poster map behind Mrs Lamb with the compounds marked? The one Jason Chafetz objected to and said he was told that information was classified?

Or something else?

Darrell said...

What haven't the American people heard? Well, except for that WaPo article on the British security firm (which was woefully incomplete given the story had already been fleshed out by Wired and Breitbart)--

Contrary to Friday’s claim by State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland that “at no time did we contract with a private security firm in Libya,” the department inked a contract for “security guards and patrol services” on May 3 for $387,413.68. An extension option brought the tab for protecting the consulate to $783,000. The contract lists only “foreign security awardees” as its recipient.

And--

Blue Mountain Group (the Brit firm)was chosen by State, in part, because it was willing to accept the State Department Rules of Engagement for Libya that prohibited security guards at Benghazi from carrying weapons that contained bullets.


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/09/18/After-Friday-Denial-State-Department-Admits-It-Hired-British-Firm-to-Provide-Security-At-Benghazi



And--

Two U.S. intelligence officials told The Daily Beast that the intelligence community is currently analyzing an intercept between a Libyan politician whose sympathies are with al Qaeda and the Libyan militia known as the February 17 Brigade—which had been charged with providing local security to the consulate. In the intercept, the Libyan politician apparently asks an officer in the brigade to have his men stand down for a pending attack—another piece of evidence implying the violence was planned in advance.

The Martyrs of the Feb. 17 Revolution Brigade is Islamist and linked with the Muslim Brotherhood. It was repeatedly accused of engaging in atrocities during and after the Libyan Civil War.

Many more-secular politicians in Libya are suspicious of Mr. Bukatef and his brigade because of their own Islamist reputation. He has been a member of Libya’s branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, and one of his group’s commanders reporting to him is Ismail al-Salabi, who leads a group of Islamist fighters and is the brother of Libya’s most prominent Islamist thinker, Ali al-Salabi.


http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/us-relied-on-muslim-brotherhood-for-benghazi-consulate-security/

So we hired the bad guys to provide security just like the UN did in Iraq (Remember how that ended? With a "boom!!!!") How long before Obama uses the Mafia to take over the Witness Protection program? The smartest evah? You bet'cha!

AF said...

The real question is: Why did Romney fuck that goat? Did he really think it would help his campaign? Was it worth it?

deborah said...

I think Leland at 2:13 has an intesting take:

"...which is worse: a lie that can be dismissed as misinformation from underlings or the truth, which might mean a prolonging of the war in Afghanistan and perhaps new fronts in north Africa? I think this was Obama's Administrations motivation for the story. Further, I think it is working. I don't think discovery of the lie, no matter if it leads to the dismissal of Susan Rice, will affect policy in Afghanistan or prolong that war, which I think Obama will end if he is re-elected. I think many in Obama's Administration find that a good outcome [because it will, they think, have a positive effect on the economy]."


Ultimately, I think it most likely that so close to an election they were covering up dereliction of duty with regard to Embassy security, with throwing SecState Clinton under the bus not an option.

Curious George said...

Rep. Gowdy nails it.

Video here: http://www.examiner.com/video/obama-administration-must-come-clean-to-americans-on-security-benghazi-libya

PatCA said...

Obama's lies rest on a foundation of at least two major pillars of leftist dogma:

1) The average American is stupid and can lied to with little or no repercussion.

2) All our enemies are inherently Noble Savages and t/4 respond to pandering rather than to bring treated as an equal and complex person.

Joe said...

It seems that one of the underlying assumptions continues to be that Obama is intelligent. He's not; he's actually rather dumb. He may be able to memorize things and pass tests, but he lacks the ability to analyze things. This supports my continued contention that he's a willing puppet, doing and saying whatever others want him to do and say as long as he retains the illusion of being the one in charge.

IF Obama has a bunch of extremely intelligent, thoughtful people backing him up, this wouldn't be a huge problem. Except he doesn't; he has a bunch of dopes and partisan hacks who are out for themselves. Were it not for the sycophants in the press, there would have been a long line of resignations by now and so few would seriously be talking about a second term that Obama probably would have lost his own party's nomination.

Neo said...

Clearly, this was an attempt by the White House to take Mitt Romney's comments about the Administration statements coming out of the US embassy in Cairo, and project them onto Libya.
Since Romney got so beatup by the MSM over his Cairo comments, they hoped to project that same failure onto Romney in regard to the attacks in Libya.

Nihimon said...

Obama isn't putting his reelection bid first - he's putting his desire to fundamentally transform America first. By blaming someone's free speech for the attacks in Libya, he's moving the country just a little closer to eventually regulating this kind of speech.

Darrell said...

That CIA compound and its mission was suspended within the last couple of weeks because it was compromised during the attacks (or the intel from the breeched embassy). That story was already published--somewhere. Go find it.

Or does that not count, like Valerie Plame being outed twice in the (distant) past--by Aldrich Ames and the Swiss to the Cubans?

Paddy O said...

Steyn thinks it's weird too!

It's weird precisely because the press would have covered for him had they just told the truth.

You don't need to coverup when you don't have an investigative or adversarial press. But he still needed to somehow coverup.

That suggests less of a purposeful decision and more of a fragile ego who has to blame someone else in all circumstances.

AF said...

Romney probably fucked the goat because he assumed that the average American was in favor of goat-fucking. That shows poor judgment.

Paddy O said...

Dare I suggest my conspiracy theory from yesterday again?

I shall indeed dare:

So, what if security was drawn down precisely to provoke an attack so that Obama could look strong in a response. The Islam video, the arrest, the whole mob story was really neatly put together in a quick narrative right away. Everyone was speaking with a common message.

Fast and Furious MidEast style?

Is that too conspiratorial?

dgstock said...

When this failure of state security is juxtaposed with the photo of the filmmaker being frogmarched to jail at midnight, I wonder whether the original intent of the administration was to intimidate the citizens as much as appease the perpetrators.

Seeing Red said...

Of Course, Garage never even considered that the enemy already knows about the CIA operation.

So who exactly did they reveal it to?

NYT does it all the time.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 346   Newer› Newest»