National Media Protecting Hillary
July 28, 2016 at 4:25 p.m.
By Gary [email protected]
For purposes of background, the Benghazi attack took place on the evening of Sept. 11, 2012. Islamic militants attacked the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, killing U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith.
Hours later, CIA contractors Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty were killed during a second assault on a different compound about a mile away.
Following the attack, Hillary, President Obama, U.S. National Security adviser Susan Rice, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney and anybody else who had a voice in the administration blamed the attacks on a dopey, anti-Islamic video produced in California – over and over again.
One can only speculate as to why, but I have an idea.
The administration’s Libyan policy was crafted by President Obama and Hillary.
They supported removal of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, and, frankly, I agreed with that policy.
But after Gaddafi was removed from power and later killed by militiamen in 2011, things didn’t go well in Libya. And things had become quite chaotic in Benghazi.
By the time of the attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound on Sept. 11, 2012, the Red Cross already had pulled its people out of the city. The British government pulled its people out as well.
According to multiple published reports:
• In April 2012, two former security guards for the consulate threw an IED over the consulate fence.
• Four days later, a similar bomb was thrown at a convoy carrying the United Nations Special Envoy to Libya. No one was hurt.
• In May 2012, an Al-Qaeda affiliate claimed responsibility for an attack on the International Red Cross office in Benghazi. (After this, the Red Cross pulled out.)
• The Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman released a video of what it said was its detonation of an explosive device outside the gates of the U.S. consulate on June 5, 2012, blowing a sizeable hole in the wall around the compound.
• The British ambassador survived an assassination attempt in Benghazi on June 10, 2012. Two British protection officers were injured in the attack. (After this, the Brits pulled out.)
• On June 18, 2012, the Tunisian consulate in Benghazi was stormed by individuals affiliated with Ansar Al-Sharia Libya.
• A local security official and a battalion commander met with U.S. diplomats three days before the attack and warned the Americans about deteriorating security in the area. The official told CNN that he advised the diplomats, "The situation is frightening, it scares us."
• Ambassador Stevens' himself expressed concern about being on an al-Qaeda hit list.
Amid this landscape, it is well documented that Hillary’s State Department denied multiple requests to provide more security in Libya.
Following this string of facts comes my speculation.
I believe the administration – a couple of months before President Obama’s re-election bid – did not want to admit any level of weakness in its policy on Libya.
If you remember, before the 2012 election, President Obama repeatedly described al-Qaeda as being “decimated,” “on the path to defeat” or “on the run.”
The day after the attack on Benghazi the President said this at a campaign event in Las Vegas.
“A day after 9/11, we are reminded that a new tower rises above the New York skyline, but al Qaeda is on the path to defeat and bin Laden is dead.”
He said these things over and over on the campaign trail. War over in Iraq. War winding down in Afghanistan. Bin Laden dead. Al-Qaeda on the run.
All is good in the Middle East because my administration is so adept at foreign policy.
Pulling our diplomatic officials out of Benghazi or sending in a bunch of extra security didn’t square with the administration’s message.
Certainly, an al-Qaeda attack killing a U.S. ambassador did not fit the campaign narrative.
So why not blame some hapless California videographer for the whole mess?
Weeks later, the blame-the-video story was discredited. The administration conceded the video didn’t cause the attack and cited “shifting intelligence” for getting it wrong in the first place.
Fast forward to Friday morning.
Here’s a sampling of headlines following Hillary’s Thursday testimony.
Benghazi hearing: Nothing new from Clinton, Republicans
Dem Rep: "Learned Absolutely Nothing New" From ...
Benghazi hearing concludes: Democrats say 'nothing new'
There's Nothing New About Hillary
Nothing New From Hillary Clinton
Nothing new from Clinton
That was the narrative all day Friday on media coverage of the hearings. Evil Republicans picking on poor Hillary. Move on folks, nothing here to see.
The problem is, there was something new. And it was something significant.
U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican, quizzed Hillary about a couple of emails and a phone call.
On the night of the attack, she emailed family members, saying, "Two officers were killed today in Benghazi by an Al Qaeda- like group."
That same night, she called the president of Libya and told him, "Ansar al-Sharia is claiming responsibility."
The next day, she told the Egyptian prime minister, "We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest."
There you have it.
This shows us that even though everybody inside the Obama adminstration knew an al-Qaeda attack killed our ambassador, they chose to tell us it was all because of an Internet video.
As troubling as that is, here’s what’s worse.
During Thursday’s hearing, irrefutable evidence of the depth of Hillary’s and the rest of the Obama administration’s deception of the American people was laid bare.
The national media largely ignores it. The revelation didn’t even merit a mention in the main Associated Press story filed Friday morning.
Well, we certainly wouldn’t want to report anything that makes Hillary look bad, now would we?
[[In-content Ad]]
For purposes of background, the Benghazi attack took place on the evening of Sept. 11, 2012. Islamic militants attacked the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, killing U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith.
Hours later, CIA contractors Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty were killed during a second assault on a different compound about a mile away.
Following the attack, Hillary, President Obama, U.S. National Security adviser Susan Rice, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney and anybody else who had a voice in the administration blamed the attacks on a dopey, anti-Islamic video produced in California – over and over again.
One can only speculate as to why, but I have an idea.
The administration’s Libyan policy was crafted by President Obama and Hillary.
They supported removal of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, and, frankly, I agreed with that policy.
But after Gaddafi was removed from power and later killed by militiamen in 2011, things didn’t go well in Libya. And things had become quite chaotic in Benghazi.
By the time of the attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound on Sept. 11, 2012, the Red Cross already had pulled its people out of the city. The British government pulled its people out as well.
According to multiple published reports:
• In April 2012, two former security guards for the consulate threw an IED over the consulate fence.
• Four days later, a similar bomb was thrown at a convoy carrying the United Nations Special Envoy to Libya. No one was hurt.
• In May 2012, an Al-Qaeda affiliate claimed responsibility for an attack on the International Red Cross office in Benghazi. (After this, the Red Cross pulled out.)
• The Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman released a video of what it said was its detonation of an explosive device outside the gates of the U.S. consulate on June 5, 2012, blowing a sizeable hole in the wall around the compound.
• The British ambassador survived an assassination attempt in Benghazi on June 10, 2012. Two British protection officers were injured in the attack. (After this, the Brits pulled out.)
• On June 18, 2012, the Tunisian consulate in Benghazi was stormed by individuals affiliated with Ansar Al-Sharia Libya.
• A local security official and a battalion commander met with U.S. diplomats three days before the attack and warned the Americans about deteriorating security in the area. The official told CNN that he advised the diplomats, "The situation is frightening, it scares us."
• Ambassador Stevens' himself expressed concern about being on an al-Qaeda hit list.
Amid this landscape, it is well documented that Hillary’s State Department denied multiple requests to provide more security in Libya.
Following this string of facts comes my speculation.
I believe the administration – a couple of months before President Obama’s re-election bid – did not want to admit any level of weakness in its policy on Libya.
If you remember, before the 2012 election, President Obama repeatedly described al-Qaeda as being “decimated,” “on the path to defeat” or “on the run.”
The day after the attack on Benghazi the President said this at a campaign event in Las Vegas.
“A day after 9/11, we are reminded that a new tower rises above the New York skyline, but al Qaeda is on the path to defeat and bin Laden is dead.”
He said these things over and over on the campaign trail. War over in Iraq. War winding down in Afghanistan. Bin Laden dead. Al-Qaeda on the run.
All is good in the Middle East because my administration is so adept at foreign policy.
Pulling our diplomatic officials out of Benghazi or sending in a bunch of extra security didn’t square with the administration’s message.
Certainly, an al-Qaeda attack killing a U.S. ambassador did not fit the campaign narrative.
So why not blame some hapless California videographer for the whole mess?
Weeks later, the blame-the-video story was discredited. The administration conceded the video didn’t cause the attack and cited “shifting intelligence” for getting it wrong in the first place.
Fast forward to Friday morning.
Here’s a sampling of headlines following Hillary’s Thursday testimony.
Benghazi hearing: Nothing new from Clinton, Republicans
Dem Rep: "Learned Absolutely Nothing New" From ...
Benghazi hearing concludes: Democrats say 'nothing new'
There's Nothing New About Hillary
Nothing New From Hillary Clinton
Nothing new from Clinton
That was the narrative all day Friday on media coverage of the hearings. Evil Republicans picking on poor Hillary. Move on folks, nothing here to see.
The problem is, there was something new. And it was something significant.
U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican, quizzed Hillary about a couple of emails and a phone call.
On the night of the attack, she emailed family members, saying, "Two officers were killed today in Benghazi by an Al Qaeda- like group."
That same night, she called the president of Libya and told him, "Ansar al-Sharia is claiming responsibility."
The next day, she told the Egyptian prime minister, "We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest."
There you have it.
This shows us that even though everybody inside the Obama adminstration knew an al-Qaeda attack killed our ambassador, they chose to tell us it was all because of an Internet video.
As troubling as that is, here’s what’s worse.
During Thursday’s hearing, irrefutable evidence of the depth of Hillary’s and the rest of the Obama administration’s deception of the American people was laid bare.
The national media largely ignores it. The revelation didn’t even merit a mention in the main Associated Press story filed Friday morning.
Well, we certainly wouldn’t want to report anything that makes Hillary look bad, now would we?
[[In-content Ad]]
Have a news tip? Email [email protected] or Call/Text 360-922-3092