Let the White House spin machine start spinning!
If the mainstream media were actually interested in reporting news, rather than trying reelect Obama, this story would be the page one feature article and the whole world would now know that the President of the United States intentionally attempted to deceive the American people . . . for the crass political purpose of reelection.
Reuters is reporting today that the White House received three emails from the diplomatic compound in Benghazi--as the attack was occurring--which identify the attackers as probable members of Ansar al Sharia and/or al Qaeda.
THE PRESIDENT LIED . . . REPEATEDLY.
While it is true that the phrase "acts of terrorism" and the term "militant groups" were both used by the President and some in the White House in discussing the murderous attack in Benghazi, there can be absolutely no doubt that there was a concerted, orchestrated effort on the part of the President and members of his administration to mislead the American people into believing that the attack was solely a spontaneous reaction to and part of a Middle East-wide reaction to the now infamous film.
Here's an excerpt from the Reuters and a link to the story.
By Mark HosenballReuters reports that they have obtained three emails and these emails were addressed to a number of offices including the Pentagon, our intelligence agencies, the FBI, AND the White House Situation Room. These emails were sent on September 11 as the attack took place.
WASHINGTON | Tue Oct 23, 2012 9:11pm EDT
(Reuters) - Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.
The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.
The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.
The White House knew or suspected that these attacks were being carried out, not by some amorphous mob of angry rioters, but by well armed militant groups, including the possible involvement of al Qaeda, on the first day--even as Obama was jetting off to Las Vegas for a political fundraiser.
It is now clear that the White House went out of its way in an attempt to create the impression that these attacks were part of the reaction to the film. Five days after the White House received these emails, Susan Rice was sent out to the entire round of Sunday morning political talk shows to deny any terrorist involvement and to lay the blame on the film.
Nine days after the attack, the President himself went on the Dave Letterman Show and repeated the same lies.
There are only two possible reasons for this attempted deception, neither of reflects very well on the President and his national security team.
- The President and his advisors were so convinced that the death of Osama bin Laden brought the end of any terrorism threat that they were unable to bring themselves to the conclusion that this attack was a terrorist attack.
- The President and his advisors chose to deceive the American people intentionally so they could continue the White House campaign narrative that the President's drone attacks had so weakened terrorist organizations that they were incapable of mounting an attack.
We know that Rice was acting under White House direction, because the President did exactly the same thing a four days later on Letterman.
So . . . was this simply an incorrect deduction dictated by liberal naiveté and blindness, or was this intentional deception? Is this White House so blind to the threat terrorism poses that they were simply unable to bring themselves to believe this was a terrorist attack--even with the reports they received and the intel they had gathered telling them differently--or is this White House just lying to us?
Given the amount of information the White House received prior to these public appearances that contradicts the official narrative and their decision to promulgate what they knew, or at least suspected, was a false narrative, the conclusion is inevitable.
The White House deliberately attempted to deceive the American people in the vain hope that all of this contradictory information wouldn't come out until after the election.
Obama must go. We cannot trust what he says, as it is very clear that whatever happened initially, he intentionally lied during the debates about what he knew and when he knew it.
They cannot simply claim "prudence." They can't claim they didn't want to mislead the people or "jump to the wrong conclusion," because they went out and told a specific and demonstrably false tale.
A lie is a lie whether it directly stated or by omission and this President along with members of his administration--including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton--lied repeatedly to the American people.
This is not like former President George Bush's WMD claims. This is not a situation in which all available intelligence was telling President Obama the attack was due to rioters, it is exactly the opposite. All available intelligence was telling the President that the attack was not due to spontaneous riots . . . and he chose to make that assertion in spite of what he knew.
A lie is a lie, is a lie, is a lie. No excuses, Mr. President. Time to fess up to your lies.
Just one question: WHAT DID THE PRESIDENT KNOW AND WHEN DID HE KNOW IT?
Long Live Our American Republic!!!!