White House says Libya attack was terrorism; Obama disagrees
President Obama’s foreign policy has degenerated into a non-stop theater of the absurd. At the same Univision-hosted forum where he said “you can’t change Washington from the inside,” the President was asked about the attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya.
For a full week, the Administration had falsely claimed that the incident, in which the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans were murdered, was an out-of-control protest against the film “Innocence of Muslims,” even as mounting evidence showed it was a pre-planned, organized terrorist attack. (Among the more immediately obvious evidence was the size of the attacking force, their use of heavy weapons, and their ability to swiftly locate the ambassador.) In fact, eyewitnesses have claimed there was never a “protest” at all, just a coordinated assault.
The strangest thing about that CBS News report is the reporter’s concluding assurance that we won’t know what really happened in Libya until after the election – blithely delivered without the slightest trace of interest or concern. It’s great to have “reporters” who meekly accept their admission tickets to the Hall of Smoke and Mirrors. Well, of course the Administration won’t tell us the truth until it’s been safely re-elected!
To their great credit, the Univision interviewers did not find that state of affairs acceptable, so Barack Obama found himself answering the first tough questions he’s faced from anyone in the media since the beginning of the general election campaign… and he fell apart.
Even though his own White House staff suddenly began referring to the Benghazi outrage as a “terrorist attack” yesterday, when the question was put to Obama, he replied, “Well, we’re still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”
I’m sorry, I know some of you still take Barack Obama seriously as a chief executive, but I have to ask: What the hell is this man talking about? Does he even think about the words tumbling out of his mouth, when he doesn’t have a prepared speech glowing on a teleprompter in front of him?
“The natural protests that arose because of outrage over the video?” Not only is Obama contradicting the most recent statements of his own national security staff, but he’s willfully feeding the “Innocence of Muslims” and Islamic supremacist narratives. Why, of course Muslims launch violent riots and trash American embassies when some obscure character posts a YouTube video that bothers them! That’s just “natural.” How strange that he’s never passively accepted the natural inevitability of Catholics protesting ObamaCare.
It’s possible the eyewitness reports quoted by CBS News are incorrect. Perhaps there was a protest getting under way at the hour of the attack, which the terrorists used as cover. But there is growing evidence that Ambassador Christopher Stevens was targeted by al-Qaeda long before anyone heard of “Innocence of Muslims.” The terrorists didn’t use the film protest as an “excuse.” And the orchestrated outrage in Egypt wasn’t a “natural,” organic response, either. Days before September 11, the Department of Homeland Security was aware of forum postings “inciting Egyptians to target the U.S. Embassy,” including “burning the embassy down with everyone in it” – not because of any YouTube video, but to secure the release of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing mastermind, “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman.
The truly important questions we need to ask are about Obama Administration negligence in dealing with these threat situations, particularly the absolutely shocking lack of security for Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi – where the simplest exercise of common sense should have made it clear, given the history of terror threats to the American consulate, that September 11 was going to be a dangerous day. Instead, we’ve got the new Administration narrative shield of “we can’t say anything because there’s an investigation under way,” as though the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was a crime scene in a tough Chicago neighborhood.
Except they do keep saying things. Apparently idle speculation about the role “Innocence of Muslims” might have played in the attack is just peachy. The President and his subordinates don’t seem terribly concerned about building up a blanket excuse for unrest around the world – just blame that YouTube video, and you’ve already got the White House and State Department conceding that your rage is an understandable, “natural” response, even if they follow up by objecting to the human and property damage you inflicted. Angry mobs and their organizers should not be winning concessions from super-powers. No one seems to be looking for any concessions from them.
There are ways for the President and top officials to deal cautiously with a developing and volatile situation. The reason messaging from the Obama team is so confused is that they’re trying to avoid questions about what they have done. Meanwhile, the scum who murdered our people in Benghazi are watching American television and whispering to each other, “Can you believe this? They’re still blaming that film.“