Permanent Spin (on the Libya embassy attack)


Permanent Spin
Oct 1, 2012, Vol. 18, No. 03 • By STEPHEN F. HAYES

For nine days, the Obama administration made a case that virtually everyone understood was untrue: that the killing of our ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya, was a random, spontaneous act of individuals upset about an online video—an unpredictable attack on a well-protected compound that had nothing do to with the eleventh anniversary of 9/11.

These claims were wrong. Every one of them. But the White House pushed them hard.

Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, appeared on five Sunday talk shows on September 16. A “hateful video” triggered a “spontaneous protest .  .  . outside of our consulate in Benghazi” that “spun from there into something much, much more violent,” she said on Face the Nation. “We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.”

On This Week, Rice said the consulate was well secured. “The security personnel that the State Department thought were required were in place,” she said …

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. Intelligence officials understood immediately that the attacks took place on 9/11 for a reason. The ambassador, in a country that faces a growing al Qaeda threat, had virtually no security. The two contractors killed in the attacks were not part of the ambassador’s security detail, and there were not, in fact, “many other colleagues” working security with them.

The nature of the attack itself, a four-hour battle that took place in two waves, indicated some level of planning. “The idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous,” Libyan president Mohammad el-Megarif told National Public Radio. …

… Not only was the attack planned, it appears there was no protest at all. Citing eyewitnesses, CBS News reported late last week: “There was never an anti-American protest outside the consulate.”

So we are left with this: Four Americans were killed in a premeditated terrorist attack on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11, and for more than a week the Obama administration misled the country about what happened.

Seriously, how can the Obama Administration have gotten all these core facts utterly wrong? And why is no one in the MSM asking the obvious either-or-both question: Intentional lies or ignorant incompetence? The Obama ***MAL***Administration pooed the screwch in it foreign policy, blew embassy security - even in the face of clear, direct warnings - and then tried the most blatant public cover-up of its screw-ups, with the complicity of the MSM!


B.O. lies about another of his administrations (foul)-ups, and the MSM helps peddle the propaganda? This isn’t news, it’s s.o.p. and it isn’t going to change.


That’s an interesting date on the article.


It’s the dead-tree magazine issue date, ConLib, a practice I’ve noticed before with The Weekly Standard and possibly a couple of publications. My practice - required on another discussion site that I frequent - in posting articles is to always: use the article’s title for a thread Subject (unless the forum SW truncates the title); include the link to the article; include the name(s) of the author(s); include the name of the source; include the publication date of the article; quote substantially less than half of articles I post, unless an article is very brief (or the source is government or a press release).


It was just an observation that lead me to belive that they were making a safe predition of what will be claimed in the very near future. Such things have been predictable to the point that it can be done with a high level of accuracy. LOL!