The Libya Question: What Did Obama Know and When Did He Know It?

Posted on | October 10, 2012 | 25 Comments

We seem to be looking at a classic Washington cover-up scandal:

The State Department is now telling a new story about the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11. It’s completely different than what we heard from President Obama and other officials in the days after the terrorist attack.

It’s amazing the things you can learn when you start issuing subpoenas and requiring people to testify under oath under penalty of perjury.

UPDATE: Hard-hitting new ad on the Libyan scandal:

UPDATE II: If you’ve seen a few cover-up scandals like this over the years, you know that the next thing that happens — once it becomes obvious that the liars won’t get away with it — is that the administration finds a Designated Scapegoat to take the fall.

Whose résumé will get updated with the unfortunate “resigned in disgrace” entry? I nominate the odious disgrace that is Susan Rice.

Trust me: Hillary is waaayy too powerful to take the fall for this.

UPDATE III: The pattern of such scandals makes the course of events fairly predictable. First of all, the people who did the right thing — the honest, competent professionals — have an inherent interest in establishing the fact that they weren’t the ones who screwed up. Take, for example, former State Department security officer Eric Nordstrom:

[N]ot only did Nordstrom repeatedly request more security for the diplomatic mission, the State Department didn’t even bother to respond to his last two requests

UPDATE IV: Joel Engel at Legal Insurrection:

In yet another story that you won’t find in the New York Times, Charlie Spiering in the Washington Examiner reported that Hillary Clinton was scheduled to meet President Obama at the White House today “as more damaging details about the terrorist attack against a United States consulate in Libya emerge.” . . .
Their story is unraveling, and only the acquiescence of the mainstream press has kept it from becoming a full-blown scandal. So what did the president and his secretary of state discuss today? Foreign affairs? Or better lies? My guess is better lies.
Clinton’s State Department, and therefore in all probability the White House, had forewarning of at least a growing danger when“foreign fighters” began flooding over the Egyptian border prior to the attacks. And, worse than doing nothing, they actually prevented security from being beefed up, though they had been warned that the level was “inappropriately low.”

Don’t expect this story to go away. There is a limit to the media’s ability to ignore such a scandal, when people like CNN’s Anderson Cooper and ABC’s Jake Tapper are so clearly fed-up with the administration’s routine incompetence and brazen dishonesty.

UPDATE V: Despite months of constant practice, Jay Carney still isn’t very effective in his capacity as Official White House Liar:

PREVIOUSLY:

Category: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Libya, Scandal

Comments

25 Responses to “The Libya Question: What Did Obama Know and When Did He Know It?”

State Department Tells A New Story On Benghazi Consulate Attack | The Lonely Conservative
October 10th, 2012 @ 6:43 pm

[…] Crossroads put this one out yesterday, asking what Obama knew and when he knew it.Update: Linked by The Other McCain – thanks.Tweetvaso linkgoogle_ad_client = "ca-pub-1395656889568144"; /* 300×250, created […]
jlwellfonder
October 10th, 2012 @ 6:46 pm

I agree with that last statement, this is gonna get ugly….
billinlv
October 10th, 2012 @ 6:52 pm

it won’t be a woman who takes the fall, particularly a black woman. It will be Clapper or some other white guy.
lonely conservative
October 10th, 2012 @ 7:02 pm

ABC just showed Obama saying that they just relayed the information that was coming in to them at the time. And hey, maybe some of that information was wrong. So I’m sure they will go about blaming that wrong information on whoever they choose to be their scapegoat and then the media will just move along to the next faux controversy.
Grammie
October 10th, 2012 @ 7:44 pm

I’ve been following this fairly closely and knew that the Brits had pulled out after an assassination attempt on their Ambassador but just learned that the US STOOD ALONE in Benghazi.

Every other country had pulled all their personnel out. So it seems that we, in the name of HOPE, not only stayed but even drew down the barely adequate level of protection we had had earlier.

I don’t know if I am more enraged or heartsick about it and the buffoon in the WH that has brought us to this point.
JeffS
October 10th, 2012 @ 7:53 pm

Don’t be too sure. Obama is black (when he cares to play that card), Hillary is a woman (AFAIK, IYKWIMAITTYD). So, it’s possible. I just wouldn’t bet on it.
Carter’s Second Term … Or Nixon’s … Or Hoover’s? | hogewash
October 10th, 2012 @ 8:16 pm

[…] one of the other 20th-century presidents he resembles, Richard Nixon, and so we are once again asking, “What did the President know, and when did he know […]
billinlv
October 10th, 2012 @ 8:35 pm

I think what you just described is commonly known as a “set up”.
Obama’s Benghazi-gate: All Cover-up and Lies
October 10th, 2012 @ 8:35 pm

[…] The Other McCain points out, that we seem to be looking at a classic Washington cover-up. And this time, people […]
richard mcenroe
October 10th, 2012 @ 8:42 pm

I’ve seen that look on Carney’s face: it says, “Jim Beam, you’re my only friend…”
Adjoran
October 10th, 2012 @ 8:43 pm

It is absolutely clear that they all knew there was no protest at all at Benghazi within 24 hours, yet the alleged President of the United States goes on Letterman and tells the UN two weeks later that it was reaction to the video. The intent to sell this as part of the Cairo & Tunis embassy attacks, which were also pre-planned at least from August 30 but inflamed by the video and were nominally “demonstrations,” was a diversion from the fact that al Qaeda is anything but “on its heels” as Obama claims in every stump speech.

There are TWO scandals here: the lying about it being a protest gone wrong for at least two weeks is one. It’s one thing to demur with “it’s under investigation,” but if your excuse is you don’t know anything, you should not be pushing any line at all, even if it is convenient to your electoral needs.

But perhaps the even bigger scandal is the failure to provide adequate security for our diplomats in a city that is in a state of virtual anarchy.
Adjoran
October 10th, 2012 @ 8:46 pm

It is evident that Obama is responsible for the lying, since the only possible explanation was temporary political benefit. He hoped the media would cover him through the election, when the truth would come too late to hurt. No one else gains anything by the lies.

Was it Hillary or Obama who directed that security in Libya be REDUCED in August? Knowing Obama, his first instinct no matter whose fault would be to throw Hillary under the bus for it. But Bill wouldn’t stand for that. And may have signaled that if they tried that stuff, he’d endorse Romney on American Idol next week.
Adjoran
October 10th, 2012 @ 8:49 pm

Clapper had no control over security. He should go, but his sin was aiding in the cover-up after it was already under way. Someone else, someone big would have to fall on his/her sword, and even that still reflects on Obama’s leadership.

They should have just come clean from the first, they would have had time to recover. In politics, the cover-up shows you can’t be trusted, a crime worse than murder.
Adjoran
October 10th, 2012 @ 8:50 pm

That maybe works for the first 24 hours. After that, everyone had the truth, and Catherine Hettrick had it on Fox by the 16th. Yet Obama is still selling the video angle at the UN two weeks after the attack.
Adjoran
October 10th, 2012 @ 8:53 pm

“Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.” ~ Robert J. Hanlon

This Administration is “Incompetents R Us” . . .
billinlv
October 10th, 2012 @ 10:07 pm

I do not know Hanlon…but I do know human nature. Best not to delude yourself. Expect and prepare for the worst.
“He who thinks the evil man is merely incompetent, will wake up dead.” ~Anonymous
Evi L. Bloggerlady
October 10th, 2012 @ 10:14 pm

Obama might be better not being reelected, because this is heading toward impeachment. http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/2012/10/jake-tapper-to-white-house-given-fact.html We need to take the Senate back.
Evi L. Bloggerlady
October 10th, 2012 @ 10:15 pm

This was reckless, so incompetence is not a strong enough term Adjoran. This was the equivalent of killing someone when you are driving drunk.
Zilla of the Resistance
October 10th, 2012 @ 11:46 pm

So, is the guy who made the mo video still in jail? Even though (as we all knew) the mo video had nothing to do with it, and even though there is no US law against making fun of mo (YET)?
SDN
October 11th, 2012 @ 7:12 am

“Never forget that malicious and incompetent are not mutually exclusive.” – SDN
Paul H. Lemmen
October 11th, 2012 @ 7:24 am

Yep. Still there, being held on no bond, indictment and arraignment closed to press and public (in camera essentially, a blatantly illegal act) no records available and he is being held in isolation. This stinks to high heaven. (This is the treatment that I feared earlier this year while writing about TDPBK)
Bob Belvedere
October 11th, 2012 @ 8:12 am

Come on, Richard, you know Little Jay is a wine guy [and a whine guy]. If he drank bourbon on a regular basis, it would toughen him up – and there ain’t no tough in that pipsqueak.
Bob Belvedere
October 11th, 2012 @ 8:15 am

The question is: What did Valerie Jarrett order and when did she order it?

Also: you know the world has turned upside down when the only one speaking the Truth is Lara Logan…
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/10/lara-logan-obama-lying-al-qaeda-and-taliban-stronger-than-ever.html
Bob Belvedere
October 11th, 2012 @ 8:16 am

The GOP Leadership in the House doesn’t have the testicular fortitude.
Gloria Gail Newman
October 16th, 2012 @ 2:27 pm

HILLARY FELL ON HER SWORD !!!