WEBCommentary Editor

Author: Bob Webster
Date:  September 17, 2012

Topic category:  Elections - Politics, Polling, etc.

Obama Administration Lying about Libya

In an obvious attempt to cover-up President Barack Hussein Obama's foreign policy ineptitude and lackadaisical attitude toward Islamic terrorists, members of his administration are busy dissembling over the recent deadly attacks in the Middle East and North Africa.

In an obvious attempt to cover-up President Barack Hussein Obama's foreign policy ineptitude and lackadaisical attitude toward Islamic terrorists, members of his administration are busy dissembling over the recent deadly attacks in the Middle East and North Africa.

First, the Administration attempted to deflect the cause of the recent deadly attacks by creating a myth that they were a spontaneous response to a YouTube® amateur video that offended the life of the Islamic prophet, Muhammad. Except there's a teensy-weensy problem with that explanation — the video was posted on YouTube® in July, months before the September raids.

If you want to know the real reason for the "demonstrations" then just listen to the demonstrators — they are telling us every time they defiantly chant, "We're all Osama, Obama! We're all Osama, Obama!" and "Obama, Obama, we are all Osama! Obama, Obama, we are all Osama!" It is clear these acts of violence are in response to Barack Hussein Obama's repeated boasting of having killed Osama bin Laden (in the eyes of many, his only positive accomplishment of the past four years).

Second, an article in The Washington Post reports that President Obama skipped nearly 60% of his daily intelligence briefings that review and update the status of critical threats to the USA. In fact, since 2011, Obama has missed nearly 62% of critical intelligence briefings. Evidently, attending fundraisers, campaigning, visiting college campuses with promises to forgive 50% of student college loan debt (in exchange for votes, of course) is more important than critical threats to our nation. Just ask four dead Americans, killed by foreign terrorists in Libya. Oh wait, you can't because they're dead. They died because Obama's inattentiveness to national security failed to warn them of the danger they faced.

Third, on instructions from The White House, the US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, made the preposterous statement on ABC®'s this week (Sunday, September 16) program that "Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premediatated — response to what had transpired in Cairo." Rice's statement is unadulterated rubbish, evidently designed to provide an Obama-friendly US media with a story they can repeat incessantly over the airwaves to deflect responsibility from Obama.

According to CNN on Saturday, September 15:

Benghazi, Libya (CNN) -- Three days before the deadly assault on the United States consulate in Libya, a local security official says he met with American diplomats in the city and warned them about deteriorating security.

Jamal Mabrouk, a member of the February 17th Brigade, told CNN that he and a battalion commander had a meeting about the economy and security.

He said they told the diplomats that the security situation wasn't good for international business.

"The situation is frightening, it scares us," Mabrouk said they told the U.S. officials. He did not say how they responded.

Mabrouk said it was not the first time he has warned ... about the worsening security situation in the face of the growing presence of armed jihadist groups in the Benghazi area.

And, a story in the New York Daily News (Sunday, September 16) reported:

The president of Libya’s General National Congress claimed on CBS’s “Face the Nation” that the assault was timed to coincide with the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Mohammed Yussef Magariaf blamed “people who entered the country a few months ago” from Mali and Algeria for mounting the assault that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others.

Sen. John McCain, the senior Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, also said the violence bore the hallmarks of premeditation.

“How spontaneous is a demonstration when people bring rocket-propelled grenades and heavy weapons?” he said on CBS. And the House Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi, told CNN early indications are it was a “well-planned probably terrorist” attack.

Finally, is the Administration trying to cover up another serious breach of security?

According to Friday's UK Independent:

America "was warned of embassy attack but did nothing".

The killings of the US ambassador to Libya and three of his staff were likely to have been the result of a serious and continuing security breach, The Independent can reveal.

American officials believe the attack was planned, but Chris Stevens had been back in the country only a short while and the details of his visit to Benghazi, where he and his staff died, were meant to be confidential.

The US administration is now facing a crisis in Libya. Sensitive documents have gone missing from the consulate in Benghazi and the supposedly secret location of the "safe house" in the city, where the staff had retreated, came under sustained mortar attack. Other such refuges across the country are no longer deemed "safe".

Some of the missing papers from the consulate are said to list names of Libyans who are working with Americans, putting them potentially at risk from extremist groups ...

Clearly, the Administration is tossing one propaganda bomb after another in an attempt to deflect the root cause of bitter Islamic anti-American violence across North Africa and the Middle East. Yet the above reports put the lie to Administration claims.

If rioters' defiant chants of "We're all Osama, Obama!" and "Obama, Obama, we are all Osama!" as a direct consequence of Obama's boasting about "his" killing Osama bin Laden aren't enough to grasp Obama's responsibility, then perhaps the Sunday, September 16 reports of the burning of Obama effigies in Egypt are more convincing:

Hundreds of [Muslim] activists ... shouted slogans and burnt the effigy of US President Barack Obama and the US flag near the American consulate here [reporting from Egypt] on Saturday [September 15].

Or perhaps the Friday, September 14 report by NTN24 News.com (Latin America's news in English source) of Afghans burning an Obama effigy will convince:

Hundreds of Afghan protesters took to the streets on Friday, setting fire to an effigy of U.S. President Barack Obama ...

"Death to America", and "death to the enemies of Islam", shouted the crowd, according to a local photographer ...

Clearly, rioters' chants and their burning of his effigy are clear indications of their rage over Barack Hussein Obama's boasting that he was responsible for killing Osama bin Laden.

As reported above, the Libyans knew about and reported the presence of a large force of well-armed foreign terrorist agents months before the well-coordinated attack on a "safe house" where the victims were located. This also raises questions about the competency of our CIA assets in the area, an area where intelligence is vital. During Barack Hussein Obama's term, either little has been made of CIA information (given the large number of briefings skipped, it is not surprising), or the collection of intelligence is being hindered by a classified internal directive from the White House. Certainly, the CIA of 20 years ago would have had current intelligence that would have warned of the coming attacks and could have confirmed the information provided by Libya in advance of the attacks.

So why is the Administration lying to the people, dissembling to cover up their responsibility with lies and propaganda, and why are major news outlets, in particular, the New York Times, aiding and abetting this Administration's attempt to cover-up the criminally negligent indifference of President Obama to our national security interests at home and abroad?

If our economy and energy independence weren't being obstructed by Obama while unemployment seems poised to rise even further; if our national fiscal condition were not being destroyed by unprecedented year-after-year $trillion deficits; if our currency were not under assault from reckless spending, borrowing and printing of currency ("quantitative easing") that will eventually bring hyper-inflation; if our credit rating had not just taken the second hit in its history (both during Obama's presidency), being downgraded late Friday from "AA" to "AA-" by the ratings firm of Egan-Jones, then, prior to the eruption of the recent anti-American violence abroad, it might be merely perplexing that nearly half the people seem to be happy to vote to continue the current economic and political malaise by supporting a second term for the most dismal presidency in US history.

But given the recent violent events and the disgraceful attempts by this Administration to, once again, dodge any responsibility while trying to assign blame to any other convenient target, it simply stretches credulity to believe that our nation is populated with enough people who could still be considering voting for the re-election of Barack Hussein Obama. Frankly, to the extent such people really exist, they might well be characterized as either criminally indifferent and uninformed, or certifiably insane!

When we begin to realize how perilous our nations's condition is, not only economically, fiscally, and politically, but now with both domestic and international security, then can there be any sane reason to continue to excuse the abysmal performance of this President who seems more concerned with his re-election and fundraising events than with our rapidly deteriorating domestic and international conditions?

At what point do American journalists, reporters, and news media services realize that their blatant support for and covering-up for the Obama administration is leading this nation into greater and greater peril? Do they even care?

Bob Webster
WEBCommentary (Editor, Publisher)

Biography - Bob Webster

Bob Webster, a 12th-generation descendent of both the Darte family (Connecticut, 1630s) and the Webster family (Massachusetts, 1630s) is a descendant of Daniel Webster's father, Revolutionary War patriot Ebenezer Webster, who served with General Washington. Bob has always had a strong interest in early American history, our Constitution, U.S. politics, and law. Politically he is a constitutional republican with objectivist and libertarian roots. He has faith in the ultimate triumph of truth and reason over deception and emotion. He is a strong believer in our Constitution as written and views the abandonment of constitutional restraint by the regressive Progressive movement as a great danger to our Republic. His favorite novel is Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and believes it should be required reading for all high school students so they can appreciate the cost of tolerating the growth of unconstitutional crushingly powerful central government. He strongly believes, as our Constitution enshrines, that the interests of the individual should be held superior to the interests of the state.

A lifelong interest in meteorology and climatology spurred his strong interest in science. Bob earned his degree in Mathematics at Virginia Tech, graduating in 1964.

Copyright © 2012 by Bob Webster
All Rights Reserved.

© 2004-2012 by WEBCommentary(tm), All Rights Reserved