Yesterday’s headlines were all over the map on this, and yet I get the impression this is viewed as a minor story by the main stream media.
Despite claims to the contrary early on, and President Obama’s reticence to use the actual words, Hillary Clinton and Jay Carney both admitted yesterday that what happened in Libya was a terrorist attack, not just a protest gone wrong. Meanwhile questions are arising about what the White House knew and when, and whether this was about a hack job of a movie at all.
CNBC asks “Did White House Lie About Libya Attacks?” The answer appears to be yes.
Here’s a link to the video of an interview the House Chair of the Homeland Security Committee, and the text of the related article:
Larry Kudlow is hearing from his beltway sources that the President may have put politics ahead of national security in the wake of the Libya attacks that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens.
Kudlow, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) and other skeptics charge the administration deceived the nation when it said the attacks had not been planned in advance.
Those same skeptics say the administration via UN Ambassador Susan Rice deliberately downplayed events in Libya to preserve Obama’s image as the President who had won the war on terror by killing Osama Bin Laden.
“They sent (Susan Rice) out for political reasons,” said King on The Kudlow Report. “The Obama administration wants people to believe that the war against terror is over.”
In other words, if the White House admitted Libya was a terror attack – it would have called the campaign message into question – something Democratic strategists didn’t want to do.
Instead, the GOP says the administration shifted attention to a movie that depicted Islam’s prophet Muhammad in an unflattering light – a movie that sparked protests in Egypt – knowing that was not the catalyst.
“They wanted people to believe the violence was caused by a few malcontents,” King explained, but it was actually something much more sinister.
“They don’t want the appearance that Al Qaeda has come back but the truth is Al Qaeda has never gone away,” said King, chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security.
“I see this as nothing short of a cover up,” added Larry Kudlow.
Former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton shares the sentiment.
“The administration could have said from the beginning, ‘We don’t know all the facts, and therefore, we’re not ruling out any potential explanation,'” said Bolton in a published interview.
“But that’s not what they did. They came down in the midst of great uncertainty and said it was spontaneous. It was not terrorism.”
Now, however, as reported in the Examiner, the White House is quietly admitting that yes, it’s “self-evident” this was a terrorist attack. And they expect this change in tone to go unnoticed. As reported in the Examiner:
“You know what else is self-evident? That the Obama administration is full of liars,” Twitchy said Thursday.
“For a week, they lied to the American people and blamed a movie, condemning free speech time and time again, for the murder of four Americans in Libya and for embassy attacks across the globe,” Twitchy added.
CBS reported Thursday morning that witnesses said “there was never an anti-American protest outside of the consulate [in Benghazi, Libya]. Instead, they say, it came under planned attack. That is in direct contradiction to the administration’s account of the incident.”
The CBS report also said “that the public won’t get a detailed account of what happened until after the election.”
Here’s that CBS report:
A major question is whether the film had anything whatsoever to do with the attack, or if it was a White House distraction from the beginning.
In a Boston Herald op ed entitled “How the Truth Hurts Hence White House Avoids it,” Michael Graham says Jay Carney’s explanation of events doesn’t pass his “teenage son” test. Click here to continue reading