October 24, 2012

With 2 words, Drudge evokes Watergate for Obama's Libya troubles.



The linked story is "White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack: emails."

The famous question from Watergate was "What did the President know and when did he know it?"
In 1973 and 1974 [Howard] Baker was... the influential ranking minority member of the Senate committee... that investigated the Watergate scandal. He is famous for having asked aloud, "What did the President know and when did he know it?", a question given him to ask by his counsel and former campaign manager, future U.S. Senator Fred Thompson.

105 comments:

Daniel Richwine said...

The only reason people claim the cover-up is worse than the crime is because they bought into it during the Nixon thing. No, the crime leaving an Ambassador dead is far worse than the cover-up, and you can see why the administration would lie. Nothing Nixon did was as bad and/or incompetent as this.

Christopher in MA said...

If only there were some organization devoted to the investigation and resolution of such questions.

But who knows? Perhaps, after Romney's election, some enterprising person will found a - oh, I don't know - journal or gazetteer of some kind which will tell us whether the economy is good or bad, whether there's full employment or streets full of homless people and whether the President is an honest man or a lying liar.

Sounds like a great business opportunity for someone devoted to truth. Garage? AL? Pragmatist? I bet there's lots of money just waiting for an enterprising bunch like you.

sane_voter said...

But, but, but Chris Matthews said everyone knows it was the youtube video! And if you don't believe that you are a RACISSST

Priscilla said...

Wait! Gloria Allred has some more important news....let's really look into that!

Tom said...

Look, over there: Big Bird! Binders! Allred!

Opinionated Me said...

A series of email alerts sent as Obama administration officials monitored the attack on the U.S consulate in Benghazi last month are the latest to shine light on the chaotic events that culminated in the death of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

The names of the individual recipients of the emails, first reported by CBS News but independently obtained by ABC News Tuesday evening, are redacted. A source who requested anonymity said it appears they are sent by the State Department Operations Center to distribution lists and email accounts for the top national security officials at the State Department, Pentagon, the FBI, the White House Situation Room and the office of the Director of National Intelligence.

The first email, with a subject line of “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack,” sent at 4:05 PM about 25 minutes after the attack began, describes an assault on the compound by 20 armed people.


I want to see how Obama. Hillary and the rest of those slime-bags explain and wiggle their way out of this one, and WHY they ALL especially that Vice President despicable JOE Biden lied about this in his debate and they ALL lied to the American people and why they didn't send help as they could have watching this on real time, we had troops only about one hour away and this lasted for about 7 hours!!

Mark said...

Hannity has been working the Watergate line for a few weeks.

Sorry, but it is a joke. This is all you have to complain about Obama for?

Nearly as stupid as binder-gate. None of these people went to Libya unaware that they were walking in danger.

Meanwhile, at the Republican convention, neither Mitt nor Ryan mention even once the regular deaths of Americans in Afghanistan. You cannot ignore them and claim outrage here without being a hypocrite in my book.

Mogget said...

I think that the media's reaction to their loss of the upcoming election will be fascinating. It will be interesting to read their analysis of how they blew it, and to see if they adopt a strategy that returns them to a more even-handed adversarial role or if they double down on trying to force their way.

Pogo said...

"None of these people went to Libya unaware that they were walking in danger."

I agree. Who do they think they are, expecting the kind of security that Obama's secretary gets? They signed up to be fodder and fodder they became.

Let's move on to more important matters, like sealed divorce records and PBS millionaires.

Rusty said...

Mark said...
Hannity has been working the Watergate line for a few weeks.

Sorry, but it is a joke. This is all you have to complain about Obama for?

Nearly as stupid as binder-gate. None of these people went to Libya unaware that they were walking in danger.

Meanwhile, at the Republican convention, neither Mitt nor Ryan mention even once the regular deaths of Americans in Afghanistan. You cannot ignore them and claim outrage here without being a hypocrite in my book.


Not the same at all. In one case-ambassadors and their staff- should have a reasonable certainty of security. They are, after all, not there for combat, but to represent their country in civil matters.
A soldier, on the other hand, knows full well when they sign up that death may be part of the bargain.

Michael K said...

Mark said...

Hannity has been working the Watergate line for a few weeks.

Sorry, but it is a joke. This is all you have to complain about Obama for?

Nearly as stupid as binder-gate. None of these people went to Libya unaware that they were walking in danger.


No, we have much more to complain about Obama. It is not a joke. Members of the US military and diplomatic service have the right to expect competent leadership, including force protection. They aren't getting it. Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan are so incredibly stupid that US soldiers are dying so they can be sure the Afghans who are shooting at them are not harmed.

The US Ambassador was in a similar situation because Obama and Hillary wanted to pretend that all in Libya was "normal."

Colonel Angus said...

Nearly as stupid as binder-gate. None of these people went to Libya unaware that they were walking in danger.

Indeed. That's why Stevens asked for increased security and was ignored.

For your Afghan analogy to work, the equivalent would be disarming our troops.

Steve Austin said...

This wouldn't be an issue if Obama didn't come out and trash US free speech rights of an American citizen for two weeks straight as the reason for this.

If he had just come clean that it was an Al Qaeda attack, perhaps triggered by Al Zwahiri who first set up the Egypt embassy distraction........

I just question whether it was Axelrod who decided to cover it up....

Rusty said...

And I'd like to add that yes the death of four US civilians at the hands of terrorists is a pretty big deal.

Freeman Hunt said...

Fred!

Michael K said...

You might, for example, read this letter. It's pdf so I can't quote it here.

pm317 said...

The linked story is "White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack: emails."

This headline is misleading. The attack went on for 7 hours. The WH had these emails in the first 2 hours. Important distinction. People in the WH knew it was a terrorist attack as they watched it for 7 hours and they didn't do anything except to figure out what their ass covering talking points will be. One more important point: the two people who died, died in the last hour of that 7 hour attack. Not knowing who was dead or alive, the WH didn't do anything to save the living.

Shouting Thomas said...

NY Times doesn't play the story on its front page this morning.

Steve said...

Sorry, but it is a joke. This is all you have to complain about Obama for?

You obviously haven't been paying attention. We have a litany of complaints about Obama. But none more pressing than wondering why they tried to cover this up? The comparisons to binder-gate are laughable.

Fprawl said...

OK, the attack lasted 7 hours on Sept 11.
Check my calculation.
We are ahead of Benghazi by 6 hours. If the attack started at 10PM, that is 4 PM EST, 3 PM Althouse time.

2 hours later the notification. Where was President Obama at 6 PM EST and the next 5 hours. He wasn't in the situation room watching it live like he did Osama.

Lem said...

When you go to the story, its just emails from Benghazi saying "we are under attack"... its not a John Dean coming forward and saying I was there when Obama was told and Obama was presented with a series of options and he decided to do nothing... there is no smoking gun... no deep throat.

The people that were there, when Obama got word, save it for a book... there are no John Deans anymore... and thats a damn shame.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Meanwhile, at the Republican convention, neither Mitt nor Ryan mention even once the regular deaths of Americans in Afghanistan."

-- Romney had almost literally just walked in from giving a speech about veterans for veterans at an event that Obama decided wasn't important enough to show up at. In short, Romney's commitment is clear. He makes time for them; Obama goes to sleep while his peopel are murdered.

Phil 3:14 said...

Well of course they knew. That's what the President said in the debate.

And I'm outraged that anyone would make this a political issue.

OUTRAGED!

Issob Morocco said...

But what is more mysterious, is why did the Cairo Embassy ahead of any protests in N. Africa, put out an apology for the video and the resulting anger from it that was created in the Arab world before it happened.

Why? A video no one knew about, suddenly is foisted on the World by our Embassy in Cairo, hmm didn't Obama's WH meet with Muslim Brotherhood folks in Egypt? Romney's attack on it was almost immediately seized upon from the WH and the Lapdog MSM. And for 4 days that was all that they spoke about. Not that our Ambassador and 3 staff were murdered.

Was this Video/Apology meant as a weapon against the Romney Campaign? Sucking him in to a political ambush, where he would look un-Presidential? He did critique right away and appropriately. Presidential. Media and WH attacked immediately. Given more breath to his words, than the deeds done in Benghazi.

But was this Axlerod political tool something 'coordinated' with Arab connections, expecting only riots and flag burning from our friends?

But in Libya, the plan went awry. Our Ambassador and 23 other Americans were caught unprotected in Benghazi.

20 got out, thanks to the last four, who died in a 7 hour fight while our Leaders knew, watched and did nothing.

Is that why Obama was so keen on keeping this a "Video" story? Based on this revelation, one has to ask, was this the October Surprise meant for Romney? Done right when polls would start to show the LV instead of the RV numbers and a tight race emerged?

The Obama team has thrown everyone under the bus in order to keep power. I would posit that this was a political act gone wrong.

Now four Americans are murdered and see that no one even lifted a finger to help from the Government.

Time to take this bus wreck off of our country's roads.

Nov. 6th!

Fprawl said...

Obama Schedule || Tuesday, September 11, 2012
by Keith Koffler on September 10, 2012, 9:45 pm

8:45 am || Observes a moment of silence to mark the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks; South Lawn
9:30 am || Attends September 11th Observance Ceremony; The Pentagon
2:15 pm || Visits with wounded warriors who are being treated at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center; Bethesda, Maryland
5:00 pm || Meets with Secretary of Defense Panetta; Oval Office

All times Eastern

What was all of that about Las Vegas?

Clyde said...

Nakoula Nakoula is unavailable for comment.

Issob Morocco said...

fprawl said.

"What was all of that about Las Vegas?"

Check Sept. 12 schedule.

Icepick said...

As awful as I believe this incident to be, I don't believe it rises to the level of Watergate. Watergate was a direct attempt to subvert the electoral processes of the United States of America. When it comes to electoral processes, this doesn't impact those except indirectly. Mostly this is about a complete lack of competence, but because of the initial incident and the grossly mishandled attempt to obscure the matter.

Benghazi and the aftermath are offenses worth the firing the President and large swaths of his team, and may even be impeachable offenses depending on particulars. But he wasn't trying to completely wreck our elections. Well, not with this.

LilyBart said...



You know Ann, I'm not that young, and your reference is a little 'before my time'. I would never have made that connection.

Why so senstative?

phx said...

Drudge evokes what he evokes strictly for other right-wing extremists. It's a big nada.

Kelly said...

I think the most interesting aspect is how they thought they could could get away with this so blatantly. Why would they think that I wonder?

When the story is written, will the media accept some of the blame? They swaddled Obama in a nice, cozy caccoon of warmth and over protectiveness. They've acted like my sister who is a helicopter parent, ready to chopper in at the first sign of trouble for Obama. They tried making this story about Romeny and his comments for 3 days after the murder of the Ambassador. Then they tried ignoring it.

I was amazed at Bret Baier and even commented to my husband how he seemed really angry over the story, he wasn't going to let it go. I think to some extent, that forced the media into doing their job. Half-heartedly maybe, but its better than nothing.

Tim said...

Of course he knew.

We all, including the trolls, knew he knew.

Why else all the nonsense about the stupid video?

They needed a plausible distraction from and excuse for their failure to take basic security precautions in Benghazi.

campy said...

I think that the media's reaction to their loss of the upcoming election will be fascinating.

Yes, it will indeed be quite fascinating to see how Fox, NRO and Insty deal with defeat ... oh, that's not what you meant?

wyo sis said...

This is the first time I've heard that troops were an hour away. If that's true this is even more sickening that I thought it was.
All the people finding ways to spread their skirts to protect Obama on this are complicit in the deaths. Too bad none of them were in a position to help our ambassador and his people. Even a skirt would have been more protection that Obama gave his supposed friend.
It's pretty clear Obama is not a person you can count on in a crisis. Well, at least not for decency or compassion. You can always count on him to fail and blame someone else.

Tank said...

If only Zero had an R next to his name. Then Libya would be the lead story on every newscast all day every day until at least the election date. All of the major media players would have teams of reporters digging, digging, digging, looking to knock out the incumbant and earn themselves a P Prize, along with Woodword/Bernstein fame.

But, alas, Zero is a D, and must, therefore, be protected.

At what cost to truth?

Whatever, truth was killed off by Zero long ago.

Icepick said...

Sorry, but it is a joke. This is all you have to complain about Obama for?

Nearly as stupid as binder-gate. None of these people went to Libya unaware that they were walking in danger.


I think comparing this to Watergate is wrong, but this is utter tripe.

There are two separate but related issues here.

The first is a question of the Administration's competence. The people that went to Libya knew they were in danger. In fact, the Ambassador was so well aware of that he kept requesting additional security. The Administration's response was to strip him of everything but the merest token of protection because ... of why? Apparently because they wanted to pretend that the situation in Libya was so secure that that most senior ranking and most visible representative of the United States government required less protection there than such individuals require in such wild places as Barbados. That is gross negligence that borders on criminal negligence, and IS criminally stupid.

The second issue is the Administrations repeated lies to the American people (and everyone else) about the cause of the death of the Ambassador and others. YouTube videos had nothing to do with it. It was a hit by terrorists, possibly some al Qaeda affiliate, making a hit on a US Ambassador and intelligence post on the anniversary of the infamous 9/11 attacks of 2001. Given that the President himself had been saying that terrorists in general and al Qaeda in particular were 'on the run' this looks like we have a cover-up that starts with the President in an effort to try and cover his ass for the election.

These are both serious issues. This isn't some bullshit issue like Romney not liking Big Bird or any of the other pablum the Democrats have been pushing.

gloogle said...

"Sorry, but it is a joke."

Mark, see, you don't get it. As a Democrat "weblog" operative, you're supposed to be a bit more.... subtle with your condescension. Thtat's what you're getting paid for, Mark.

Please keep this in mind when posting.....

EDH said...

Freeman Hunt said...
Fred!

Ethel?

PETER V. BELLA said...

Give the man a break. He has an campaign to run. He has to work hard to keep the only real job he ever had. He has mouths to feed, a mortgage to pay on his Chicago manse, and college tuition to save for. He is fighting for his economic survival here.

And all people worry about is some embassy is a land far far away? Sheesh, it's not like we hired Obama to run the country or anything. We just hired him to run for reelection, which he has been valiantly doing since he took the oath of office.

Bryan C said...

"Nearly as stupid as binder-gate. None of these people went to Libya unaware that they were walking in danger."

Only if "aware that you're walking into danger" is uniquely redefined to mean "left hanging out to die for the sake of political convenience." Hey, wait a minute -- Mr. President? Is that you?

Hagar said...

Whatever you think of the Bill and Monica story, what Bill Clinton is going to be remembered for is that fingerwag and: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinski!"

Lem said...

Disclaimer.

That "deep throat" reference was from Watergate... you can look it up.

It has nothing to do with the rumors surrounding the presidents personal life... which as some of you may remember from the Clinton years... Obamas personal life is between him and Michelle.

Of course should it turn out that there is a sex angle... as in where was Obama during this time?

Then you would see thing take off really really fast... people seem to...I dont know... understand sex above all other human activity.

There were rumors during Clinton that he regularly snuck out of the White House... a book by a Gary Aldrich "Unlimited Access".

Where was Obama during the events transpiring in Benghazi... seems to me to be a good question to start off with.

Hagar said...

OT,

“You seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policies of the 1950s and the economic policies of the 1920s.”

But those were the good times!

Paul said...

Well Ann, when DID he know it?

Seems like this is a serious coverup where Obama flat LIED to the people while WATCHING Americans DIE (literaly).

Tim said...

@Michael K,

That's a shocking letter; a total indictment of our efforts in Afghanistan.

Shameful.

traditionalguy said...

The Al Qaeda declared war is not a surprise anymore. It started from their side about 1990 and was first noticed here in 2001.

But what inane fantasy occupies the small mind of Hussein Obama that he feels a need to hide it from us?

Liz Cheney on Fox News this AM stated that there were American forces one hour away in Cigenella Italy as the 6 hour attack was watched live in the White House.

Hussein apparently saw nothing except his chance to love up to the Muslim Brotherhood as one brother to another>

Hussein was no brother to our Diplomat...why he even did psyops on the US media for his real brotherhood.

CWJ said...

Icepick@7:54,

I don't see Watergate as a "direct attempt to subvert the electoral processes". The burglary was a criminal attempt at opposition research, and therefore way out of bounds. But at heart it was still nothing other than an extreme form of oppo research; something campaigns legally do all the time. It had nothing to do with voting or process, electoral or otherwise.

MadisonMan said...

Freeman, your 739 post -- oh so brief! -- made me chuckle today.

Michael K said...

As awful as I believe this incident to be, I don't believe it rises to the level of Watergate. Watergate was a direct attempt to subvert the electoral processes of the United States of America. When it comes to electoral processes, this doesn't impact those except indirectly.

Watergate was above all else, a coup d'etat by Mark Felt who was angry that Nixon had appointed another man, L Patrick Gray, to head the FBI instead of Felt. Felt, of course, was "Deep Throat."

Nixon may well have ordered the break-in but there is a theory that John Dean was actually responsible because he was looking for information about his new wife who had a sketchy history.

Nixon had a weakness for subordinates and a very hard time firing anyone. That weakness was fatal in the face of Felt's attack. This not to say that Nixon was innocent of the cover-up; just that it is much less serious than it appeared at the time, even to me.

TWM said...

"You cannot ignore them and claim outrage here without being a hypocrite in my book."

Your books makes no sense at all.

Mark O said...

Four died. Obama lied.

Where's Neil Young?

Bruce Hayden said...


As awful as I believe this incident to be, I don't believe it rises to the level of Watergate. Watergate was a direct attempt to subvert the electoral processes of the United States of America. When it comes to electoral processes, this doesn't impact those except indirectly. Mostly this is about a complete lack of competence, but because of the initial incident and the grossly mishandled attempt to obscure the matter.

Watergate started as a fairly mild campaign dirty trick gone bad. A group loosely connected to the Nixon reelection campaign caught breaking into the DNC, apparently for a copy of their big donors list or something like that. Arguably no worse that the Obama campaign's knowingly taking illegal campaign contributions through turning off credit card verifications (last campaign) or not turning it on (this campaign). Last time, they had entire NFL rosters "donating" at once, along with Disney cartoon casts. This time, we have millions already from missing or invalid zip codes.

The sort of campaign dirty tricks that the "plumbers" were caught doing was little different than that of FDR, JFK, LBJ, etc. Indeed, Nixon was arguably the victim when JFK's father complained that he had bought too many votes in Ill. in 1960.

And, of course, no one died in Watergate. On the other hand, people also died as a result of Operation Fast and Furious, and the Obama Administration has been able to stone wall that and the MSM has worked hard to keep it from turning into the scandal that it deserved to be.

It is the cover up that got Nixon, and I think is going to get Obama, if reelected. His Administration has been able to punt F&F beyond the next election through a bogus claim of Executive Privilege. Congressional subpoenas are in court right now, and the DoJ lately made an obviously frivolous political question motion for dismissal (they are essentially making the same arguments dismissed in Watergate - both for executive privilege and political question).

So, if Obama is reelected, expect that F&F will continue to unravel through 2013. But, we can now add Benghazi to also heat up as a scandal. A Republican House is not about to let the White House get away with it. Neither may actually reach the Oval Office, because of minions willing to fall on their swords, and because Obama has had such a lackadaisical management style that he may actually have been in the dark on both all along. But, I think that both Holder and Hillary! are toast, if they stick around.

Roger J. said...

I personally think that Michael K is on target with respect to Mark Felt. Mark Felt was no hero--he was a traitor who brought down a president with the help of the press.

Not that Nixon didnt set himself up, but Felt, because he was passed over for FBI director, took his revenge.

Again, of course, IMO

Bruce Hayden said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
EMD said...

The New York Times is still on board, writing about the upcoming National Geographic Channel film Seal Team Six:

"Beyond the political issues, the film may carry the risk of associating Mr. Obama with any backlash in a Muslim world already inflamed by the YouTube trailer for an insulting film portrayal of its prophet. In September riots erupted in Libya, Egypt and elsewhere as Muslim crowds reacted violently to what they perceived as the unforgivable insults of a scratch production, “The Innocence of Muslims,” some of which was posted on YouTube."

Bruce Hayden said...

I think that both Holder and Hillary! are toast, if they stick around.

That though is the thing that probably keeps the Obama people from sound sleep at night. The Clintons have their own power base and their own obsequious press. Hillary! is not going down gracefully for Benghazi, and I think that we can already see some of that in the leaks that are being reported. We could see an epic intraparty fight, should the Obama people try to put too much of the blame on Hillary! Should be quite entertaining.

Darcy said...

I am sick to death of people defending this.

These are the Obama voters. This is who they are. Very much like the man himself.

It disgusts me to write that and think that. I'm judging the hell out of them, I know. To that, I want to say "Damn you for making me judge you!".

How am I doing with that Christian thing?

michaele said...

You just know that if a Republican was president, the video of the attack would already have been gotten to the media so it could get coverage and condemnation like the pictures from Abu Ghraib.
This cover-up truly sickens me...lives were lost so that a politically ass saving narrative could be maintained.

JL said...

But what is more mysterious, is why did the Cairo Embassy ahead of any protests in N. Africa, put out an apology for the video and the resulting anger from it that was created in the Arab world before it happened.

One does start to wonder* if the administration was tipped off about the impending attack in Libya, knew they would not be able to stop it - either because they are not competent enough or did not have enough time- and put forth this video story/apology to use it as a cover up for their failure to protect in Libya.

But the simplest theory is that the admin. was caught off-guard - literally - in Libya, and opportunistically used the video story that arose from the embassy apology as an attempt to coverup their failures until after the election. And Romney's response to the embassy apology was a boon to them, since they could now turn all the focus onto attacking Romney.

This is what you get when you have a majority of the media in the pocket of the political party in power. This admin. probably wouldn't have pushed the coverup lie if they didn't have a fawning press willing to act as propagandists. The press can blame themselves if this coverup attempt ends up backfiring on Obama.

*That's the problem with attempting a coverup: It leads to all sorts of speculation as to what it is you are trying to hide.

Matthew Sablan said...

They're not trying to hide anything; they're just that bad at this.

JL said...

They're not trying to hide anything; they're just that bad at this.

Heh- well yes, that was my first reaction as to why they chose to lie about what happened in Libya- incompetence. It was predictable from the moment Obama announced he was headed to a fund raiser in Vegas that he would botch the response to the crisis.

TWM said...

Of course he knew. Only the ignorant or corrupt would think otherwise.

Christopher in MA said...

These are the Obama voters. This is who they are. Very much like the man himself.

Of course, they are, Darcy. As the trolls on this thread (beginning with Mark) show, They. Don't. Care.

They won't talk about the lack of security at the Embassy. They won't talk about Ambassador Stevens' begging for reinforcements. They won't talk about the timeline. They won't talk about Las Vegas.

They will talk about Romney's "gaffe," because that's where they do care - an honest look at Benghazi would, were Obama a Republican, already have the NYT calling for impeachment (letting an American ambassador be killed and doing nothing about it is damned well a high crime and misdemeanor).

I don't share your concern about acting Christian. It's painfully obvious that these deaths are merely - as Zero admitted - "bumps in the road" to reelection and that none of the "liberals" on this blog give a damn. There is nothing they care about other than winning the election.

Ask Garage. Or Alpha. Or Ritmo. Or AF or Pragmatist or any of the other fools one simple question: is there anything Obama can do which you would not support? You'll get nothing but noise from them. Because they have no core, no morals and no patriotism. There is nothing to them other than the winning of an election.

They're not your countrymen, Darcy, and are not worth your time, attention or charity.

ricpic said...

Obama's highest priority? No matter what, keep on running guns to the Muslim Brotherhood. Treasonous SOB.

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

You all still don't understand how it works.

Stonewall, lie, deceive, misrepresent, obfuscate. No worries. The media is our friend, and they certainly won't drill down into this. They love us.

Without the involvement of the media, there would have been no Watergate. But now, as Pat Cadell says, the media have become an "Enemy Of The American People".

Move along people; there's nothing to see here.

From Inwood said...

LilyBart

You know Ann, I'm not that young, and your reference is a little 'before my time'. I would never have made that connection.

This from a person whose nom de blogue is from a 1905 novel by Mrs. Wharton!

BTW, were you asleep during your History class when teach explained how the Forces of Good defeated Richard The Evil?

This Drudge post is, as usual, inspired, but must be ignored by the usual group of slobbering Dem supporters.

Dante said...

It didn't take long for Lawerly (i.e., careful, weighing the evidence, etc.) Ann Althouse to note something didn't smell right.

The big news here isn't that he knew, but that the press covered his butt. Even so far as in a presidential debate.

Lawyer Mom said...

Of course Obama couldn't tell the truth: the U.S. armed and trained the Libyan rebels who attacked us. They are radical Islamists and Obama foolishly gave them weapons to overthrow Qaddifi.

Stevens was there assisting ex-SEALs on a covert mission to recover those weapons. If he'd had appropriate security, his presence would be more conspicuous and the mission would have been blown.

We are doing the same thing in Syria. That may be why Stevens met with a Turkish official the night he was killed.

Our foreign policy is a complete disaster.

http://lawyermommusings.blogspot.com/2012/10/dcs-blind-libyan-mice-see-how-they-run.html

edutcher said...

So they had 4 - 5 hours to do something. This is why we need troops (maybe not full corps or even divisions) at various points around the world. Willie really fucked us when he cut the Army from 18 to 10 divisions.

PS OK, that's the end of Hillary and a Grover Cleveland by Zero in '16.

Both should be impeached.

Of course, they won't, but the indignity should be heaped upon them.

George Grady said...

White House reports:

"All Quiet on the Libyan Front"

Comanche Voter said...

Unlike Biden Ann, when you say "2 words" you deliver two words.

Recalling Biden's extra letter in a "3 letter word" J O B S.

And it's fitting to think of BS when thinking of Biden.

From Inwood said...

Prof A

Slightly off point, so if you delete this it's OK.

Spent some time in NYC in the begining of this month.

Went to The Met. Walked around the UES.

Went to Brooklyn to The Art Museum, to Prospect Park, to Barclays Center (outside), & then to Downtown Brooklyn by bus. Walked over the Brooklyn Bridge & through some of the City Hall area.

Walked around Lincoln Center & parts of the UWS & through Central Park to Grand Army Plaza & down Fifth to Bryant Park.

Walked around Gand Central.

Went to the Theater District. Went to a sleazy sports bar on 8th Ave & then to a B’way show.

Went back to my old grammar school in Inwood & had lunch (at the Piper's Kilt, owned by a grammar school classmate) with the acting Principal (a childhood friend).

Didn't see any signs for Obama. No buttons. No people talking about him like he was the Second Coming.

Went to a private dinner in The Water Club & everybody at my table (all now still in Metro NYC except me) was mad as hell about the possibility of a second disastrous term for The Anointed Ώne.

Went to The Annual Medieval Festival at The Cloisters (a branch of the Met in Inwood – North Manhattan – for those of you who haven’t been there). Again no signs, buttons etc. & nobody talking about him.

At a table outside the entrance to the Festival there was a cleaned-up "Occupy" type (anyway, definitely not someone Mrs Wharton would admire)from the local Dem Club with a bunch of voter registration forms. I went over & he slobbered something that sounded like he was ready to help me register to vote. I told him that I would love to but that I no longer lived in Inwood. He seemed non-plussed. I asked him if he was getting a lot of people registering (no one was registering then). He sputtered something like “don’t believe what you read & hear; we’re doing fine!”. I asked if everyone who registered would vote. He replied: “Of course.” He was gone when I left the event at 4PM

IRRC, at the same event in 2008, it looked like a festspiel in honor of The Anointed One.

Darcy said...

@Christopher in MA

Thank you. My struggle is in believing that I am no better. Because I am not. I want to believe otherwise, of course. And I still want to call it out.

PatCA said...

Well, did Obama say he didn't know it was extremists and not the video? He has muddied up the story so well that I don't think this is going to be a big deal.

Michael McNeil said...

Well said, Darcy — and I think you're doing fine!

Rusty said...

EDH said...
Freeman Hunt said...
Fred!

Ethel?

See. I was thinking Flintstone.

Jon said...

@Rusty -

I think that (Fred and Ethel) is from the old Lucille Ball show - a mid-50s reference.

Koblog said...

But were Obama and Stevens actually running guns to al Qaeda in Syria to fight Assad? Turns out the "consulate" in Benghazi was more like a broken down house with two arms-filled warehouses nearby.

This has the smell something REALLY big.

To have Obama, Biden, Clinton, Carney and Amb. Rice all lie so transparently and so desperately seems to me the White House had something so outrageous cooking in Benghazi that they took the risk of the lie -- and a dead ambassador -- rather than have the scheme exposed.

Where is Woodward and Bernstein when you need them?

Darcy said...

Michael McNeil! Hope you are well. :)

Issob Morocco said...

JL-you still have not answered why an apology for protests created by an unseen video on the internet was put out ahead of any protests?

That sounds like coordination gone awry. As if someone in Cairo was told to put it out there and instead of awaiting the proper time just put it out so they could be done with it. Timing was off, and then when Romney jumped on the apology, he was jumped on immediately by OFA team. That part is why I see this as a political act meant to ensnare Romney, but somehow it seems Al Qaeda was also tipped off and knew we were not protected and our Ambassador and staff were unprotected.

How did the apology appear before there was a reason to apologize?

Why?

Nov. 6th.

This is classic Chicago way.

Unfortunately some Chumbalone did not follow instructions.

Issob Morocco said...

See this from Politifact posted on September 12.

"What the Cairo embassy said

According to media reports, the U.S. embassy in Cairo released a statement at 6:17 a.m. East Coast time on Sept. 11, 2012, amid growing anger in Egypt about an obscure Web video with a highly negative portrayal of the Prophet Muhammad -- a video that, given past experiences with depictions of Muhammad, seemed likely to spark protests.

The statement condemned the video:

"The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others."

About four hours later, crowds began to form and over the next several hours, the protesters stormed the embassy compound, destroyed a U.S. flag and replaced it with an Islamic flag. About three hours later, according to the Washington Examiner, the embassy tweeted, "This morning's condemnation (issued before protest began) still stands. As does our condemnation of unjustified breach of the Embassy." (This tweet has disappeared from the Embassy Twitter feed.)

That night in Libya, militants attacked U.S. facilities in Benghazi, eventually killing the four diplomats. The news of the deaths was not announced by the U.S. government until after 7:00 a.m. East Coast time on Sept. 12.

So why apologize or put out such a statement when nothing had happened?

Nov. 6th.

Methadras said...

Not only did he know, but everyone else from Biden to Hillary knew too and they all flat out lied to our face. Period. End of story.

Fuck you inga, fuck you garage, fuck you alphaliar, fuck you penny, fuck you lindsey, fuck you, phx, fuck you ritmo, fuck you voltaire, fuck you shiloh, fuck you andy r. or any of the rest of you leftards for defending this traitorous anti-american 5th columnist. He's a traitor to the country at this point and needs to be removed or resign immediately.

Methadras said...

Darcy said...

I am sick to death of people defending this.

These are the Obama voters. This is who they are. Very much like the man himself.

It disgusts me to write that and think that. I'm judging the hell out of them, I know. To that, I want to say "Damn you for making me judge you!".

How am I doing with that Christian thing?


You should judge. Don't think that making judgements is somehow unchristian of you. It isn't. Am I a sinner? You bet, but that doesn't stop me from saying that these leftards that have defended Urkel all this time on this issue have not only been wrong, have not only run cover for this traitor, but have done it willingly and have lied for him too. Purposefully and knowingly. If you don't hold them responsible or accountable through your judgement as a citizen of this country and call them out for what they are, then you are letting them get away with it. Don't let them get away with it.

dc said...

I think Obama consulted Crazy Joe his resident foreign policy expert. The man who adds gravitas to his administration.
Crazy Joe told him the attack was no big effing deal.

LilyBart said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
LilyBart said...

This from a person whose nom de blogue is from a 1905 novel by Mrs. Wharton!

BTW, were you asleep during your History class when teach explained how the Forces of Good defeated Richard The Evil?


When I see the phrase "He Knew" - Watergate is not what pops into my head.

And, I happened to like classic literature. Modern literature is almost unreadable these days.

Darcy said...

Oh, I'm definitely judging, Methadras. I can't help myself! ;-)

David Funk said...

Did Mark really say "None of these people went to Libya unaware that they were walking in danger."? Words fail me. Do you have to give up all your morals to go to work for Obama? There is a lot of competion for the most vile person in the world. Mark, you don't win, but you are in the race.

David Funk said...

Did Mark really say "None of these people went to Libya unaware that they were walking in danger." There is a lot of competition for the most vile person in the world. Mark, you don't win, but you are in the race.

furious_a said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
furious_a said...

Yesterday some Obama bitter-enders sure beclowned themselves swearing like the big kidz that "Benghazi-gate" was "officially dead".

HE KNEW, foolz.

JL said...

So why apologize or put out such a statement when nothing had happened?

Wasn't the apology tweet sold as a failed attempt to stop an impending riot? I thought the story was that the US embassy in Cairo had been tipped off by the Egyptian govt. that there was an impending riot, ostensibly in reaction to the airing of the infamous youtube video on Egyptian TV.

I agree that we don't have the whole story behind that tweet, and the events leading up to it in Egypt. If in fact there had been no alert of an impending riot, the apology tweet doesn't make a lot of sense. Obviously there are still a lot of unknowns, over a month after the fact. Yet much of our media acts like it couldn't care less. We may never know the truth about that tweet, now that the Libya coverup has taken center stage.

I tend to not think the tweet was a set up for Romney, though, because the administration couldn't know whether or how he would respond. But, your speculation is certainly as valid as any. We've gotten nothing but misinformation and obsfuscation from this administration. Speculation is all we've got when the facts are scarce.

josephmcnulty said...

I lived through Watergate and was intensely aware of each twist and turn in the story. I had no feeling for the fall of Richard Nixon. Now, forty years later and long after Nixon's death, I have come to the sad conclusion that Watergate was NOT about protection of the Constitution from a reckless President. I am a former daily newspaper reporter, but I now realize that Watergate was really about the Left getting Nixon (with feckless Republican help). If today's media were immersed in Watergate and Obama was the President, today's Woodward and Bernstein would be either ignoring the story or helping Obama (the Nixon figure) manage the cover-up.

David said...

Obama kept the video alive for weeks after it would have dropped from thae ratbags excuse list.

How many Christians in Muslim countries have been killed or maimed because of Obama's lies.

David said...

I imagine that many at the UN General Assembly listening to Obama's [video] speech already knew the truth.

What must they have thought of Obama as he spoke.

David said...

Sorry for the multiple posts.

Hillary worked in the Congress supporting the Watergate investigation.

Chip Ahoy said...

A koala playing a base, the wooden stand up kind, riotously, nickels flying out. Nickels instead of notes. A cute cartoon picture.

That's how my brain gives me Nakoula Basseley Nakoula to score! after allowing my interlocutor say all they know. High information voters all, but none can come up with names like I do big Ben, the bear not the clock, wrapped up in gauze like a mummy. They do come up with the names sometimes somehow when they're current, but not like I do. I don't think.

Apparently natural occurring mnemonics has a preference for bears.

But even so I never win arguments. The win goes to the blusterers and blowhards who repeat everything. When they say the same thing a third time I go real loud, IHEARDYOUTHEFIRSTTTWOTIMES!!1!"

jr565 said...

LEt me say in Defense of Obama (you won't hear this that often mind you) that I think the issue of a coverup is a little overblown.
The Obama administration isn't saying that they didn't know the embassy was being attacked. Of course they knew that. But knowing that doesn't mean they know why it's being attacked. If it were a riot that got out of hand and led to an embassy being attacked and you were watching the thing from a video feed it would play out the same regardless of how it started.
So, I'm a little confused as to what the Obama admin is lying aobut knowing. Also, there was some reason to believe that there was some anger at the You Tube videos since there were riots all around the Middle East over it.
The issue to me though is more that they ignored the request for more security from the ambassador himself (there had been two prior attacks after all to the embassy) as well as a tip off that Al Qaeada was planning to attack embassies or that embassy.
Also, there was good reason for Obama to downplay that it was Terrorism (as opposed to an act of terror). For one, it makes his policy look bad. He had just said that Al Qaead was pretty much on its last legs and ignored calls for security, and so if Al Qaeda is alive and well, it opens him up to atttack during the election. Also, he/Obama may have wrongly thought that by downplaying that it was a terrorist attack he was keeping a powder keg from exploding further. But showing weakness before terrorism only emboldens terorrists.
So, I'm not saying that Obama shouldn't be held accoutnable, but I think trying to make this a gotcha about what he knew about the attack and whether he called it an act of terror or terrorism is kind of beside the point.

gadfly said...

Fprawl said
Where was President Obama at 6 PM EST and the next 5 hours. He wasn't in the situation room watching it live like he did Osama.

Althouse posted this NRO article by Bing West which states:

At 5 p.m., President Obama met with Vice President Biden and Secretary of Defense Panetta in the Oval Office.

That was 1/2 hour after the attack began. Obviously, it does not matter where he was after that, since he should have acted to rescue embassy personnel immediately.

Kirk Parker said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kirk Parker said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kirk Parker said...

George: Im Libyen Nichts Neues

Issob Morocco said...

jr565-

Two points first, the riots you reference happened after the Cairo Embassy posted its condemnation of the video, not before as you describe.

That leads to the second point, which is why was that video which no one knew of or had heard of until Larry Schwartz PAO at Cairo Embassy posted that on the Embassy Twitter site (sure to gain global views, but not too many Egyptian ones as they don't have very many users there)?

Why was this video put out there ahead of time (via our Cairo Embassy)?

If you remember the Mohammed Cartoon riots they happened post the release. Here it was like we were giving someone a heads up to go riot.

Cairo riots started about 4 hours after the Tweet was released, and then when critiqued by the WH Larry Schwartz put out another Tweet basically saying "Pound Sand" we stand behind it.

Was this a political stunt gone wrong? Did Al Qaeda in conjunction with their pals of the Muslim Brotherhood, use some insider info about the video to provide cover for what they knew would be the typical Muslim rage riot to go after a very effective Ambassador and his staff?

Why the video?

Nov. 6th

دردشة ومنتديات عراقنا said...


شات عراقنا
دردشة عراقنا
جات عراقنا
عراقنا
شات كيكه
جات
دردشة عبدالله
شات العراق
دردشة
دردشة عراقية
شلة عراقنا
منتدى عراقنا
منتدى دردشة عراقنا