The latest document release makes clear that what anyone paying attention at the time thought had happened was what had happened:
In the fall of 2012, the Obama White House was focused on re-election to the point that it was shutting its real duties out. President Obama was shutting his own real duties out, campaigning far more than governing. He hadn’t met with his jobs council in months. He was skipping his daily security intel briefings. The Sept. 10 release was sent out to make him look presidential, without actually performing the duties of president. There was no security meeting, and no forces were actually moved around anywhere to gear up for the 9-11 anniversary. There was a conference call, a conversation, and a press release.
The administration had been warned that security in Benghazi was deteriorating and an attack was likely and would be deadly, repeatedly. The black flag of Islam was already flying over government buildings in Benghazi. Ansar al-Sharia, al Qaeda’s affiliate in Libya, was gaining power. Terrorists had already attacked the Red Cross and the British embassy in Benghazi, forcing both to abandon the city. The last remaining target of three that al Qaeda had stated its intent to attack was the US facility. But Clinton’s State Department consistently denied requests to beef up security, and Obama couldn’t be bothered to give a damn about anything but winning re-election.
The attack happens. It’s clear from the beginning that it was an attack, the military briefed administration officials that it was an attack, but the State Department had been denying field requests from Benghazi to beef up security, and there’s a paper trail of those denials. Obama hasn’t been attending to his daily intel briefings. Obama, derelict in his duty every bit as much as Clinton, has been campaigning on the theme that “al Qaeda is defeated and on the run.” Well, here they are to spoil that particular campaign line and re-write their own in the blood of four Americans.
The inconvenience of four dead Americans could not be allowed to become speedbumps slowing Obama’s path to re-election.
And so the ongoing parade of lies.
the ongoing parade of lies
You seem to have redefined “lie” to be “said A when I think he should have said B”. You were far pickier about your use of the word when the topic was Bush’s lies.
A lie is a deliberate falsehood; Obama’s statements on Benghazi don’t meet that standard.
Obama’s statements on Benghazi exceed that standard.
Indeed. Obama, Clinton, and Rice knew the entire time that the attack was the work of terrorists affiliated with al Qaeda, and that it was not a spontaneous protest and had nothing to do with an Internet video. They continued to do so for weeks, proclaiming repeatedly something they know to be absolutely false, which according to the Oxford English Dictionary is the defined by the word “lie.”
In contrast, Bush was merely mistaken about Saddam’s WMD because Saddam had gone to great lengths to fool the world intelligence community, and thus fool Iran into not attacking him. If Bush had known that Iraq didn’t in fact have WMD, he and his administration would’ve made lots of preparations for the inevitable post-invasion revelation that Saddam didn’t have any. They didn’t do so because they were sure that he had such weapons coming out his ears. Thus, they weren’t lying, they were merely mistaken, just like almost everyone else in the intelligence community.
Obama to the UN General Assembly on Sept. 25, 2012: “And that is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, where a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world<. Now, I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.”
A twofer. First, no video sparked outrage. Second, the only notion that a video did spark outrage came from the US government.
In fact, the Senate’s report only mention of the video was that “Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day’s violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video”, but the entirety of the rest of the report shows that the attacks were prepared over a long period of time and before any protest in Cairo began. What the report also states, contrary to Jim’s recent assertions, was that security could and should have been improved long before the night of September 11th. No wonder Jim tries to point to “nothing could be done when the attacks started” because he doesn’t want anyone talking about all that was ignored by the Secretary of State long before the attacks even began. Well Jim, only the Secretary of State’s office had the authority to deny the requests for enhanced security. Sure, Hillary may not have personally blocked the request, but it was one of her direct reports that did.
I suggest everyone drop the subject. Don’t want anyone to end up like Nakula.