The President Lied On Benghazi

Big Red Car here.  I love Sunday mornings because I can watch the “shows” on television and I can use the computer and surf the ‘Net when The Boss is at church.

He goes to that snake charming church of his. Haha, Big Red Car, watch yourself you’re going to get your ‘puter privileges shorted.  OK, sorry, Boss.

So let’s cut the crap about Benghazi.  Let’s skin it back and let it stink.

Why did the President lie?

The President was in the midst of a tough election — Hell, all presidential elections are tough.

The President’s campaign meme was that the wars were going well.  The Taliban were on the run.  Al Qaeda was in remission.  Osama Bin Laden was dead.  Things were going swimmingly.

Therefore, the President was entitled to a second term.  If true, not a bad argument even for a Big Red Car.

Problem — not really true, no?

The Benghazi incident was an indictment of this meme.  It contradicted the finely crafted happy horse pucky coming from the campaign.  It did not fit the “truth” that the President was projecting and it was a potential hiccup on the road to a second term.

So, the President, with his tenuous relationship with inconvenient truths, could not allow these facts to surface.

It was all political bull shit.  [Sorry, ya’ll, but it is time to take off the gloves on this crap.]

So, the President lied.  And he lied BIG TIME.

He sent out a stooge, UN Ambassador Susan Rice, to sell the nonsense that this was a “demonstration” rather than an attack and that this demonstration was triggered by a sense of outrage spawned by an offensive YouTube movie clip.  WTF?

In retrospect, that lie was of such gargantuan proportions as to be a Hall of Shame lie.  Really, pissed off movie critics?  Really?

What was the truth?

The CIA within two hours of the first attack in Benghazi had correctly called the “attack” an attack.  It is in their own writing on talking points created in real time.  It was also immediately recognized that this was an attack launched by Islamic extremists and Al Qaeda members.

Beloved readers — isn’t that initial explanation exactly what one would have suspected given the facts?  It is not only likely and plausible — it is perfectly predictable.  Would the truth have surprised or shocked you?

Other countries had already shut down their Benghazi consulates and there had been an assassination attempt on the British Ambassador.  An idiot could have connected those dots.  Benghazi was well known as a rough, nasty little burg in which the Islamic extremists and Al Qaeda had already been playing.

Benghazi was not a place where they were holding a film festival.  This was not Sundance in Benghazi.  Not even Sean Penn would have gone there to preview a movie.

Let me digress for just a second.

1.  The inclusion of mortars, crew served automatic weapons (high caliber machine guns) and RPGs (rocket propelled grenades) is a damn sure sign of a bit of military expertise, organization and effort.  It is also the hallmark of Islamic extremists and Al Qaeda running amok on a bit of jihad or other mischief.

2.   Any reasonably intelligent person — particularly anyone who is a veteran and has been around these tools of the military trade — could smell a whiff of baloney in the air when the notion that this was a bunch of irked movie critics was floated.

3.  Such weapons require a bit of expertise in their utilization.  They are heavy.  They require lots of ammunition and that ammunition is heavy.  They require a lot of manpower to move and operate.  You have to know how to lay in those mortars and to direct their fire using fire direction techniques that are not intuitive.  You have to read the operating instructions.  You have to be able to adjust the impact of the mortar rounds using direct observation.

4.  The average movie critic does not possess such weapons, does not know how to operate them, does not have the manpower to move them.  [Oooops.  Sorry — the Bullshit Meter is going off pretty loud just now.]

Now, it turns out that the truth was known by the CIA in the first minutes after the attack.  Today, the FBI has published photographs of known Al Qaeda members who were on the scene — why did this take eight months when the Boston Marathon Massacre bombers’ pictures were up in hours after the attack?

The coverup — the lies

The cover up — the lies — began immediately with the State Department’s and White House’s altering and censoring of the CIA’s explanation and talking points.

There was no “attack” — it was a demonstration.

There was no acknowledgement that this was Islamic extremists or Al Qaeda — it was apparently movie critics wandering around with mortars, automatic weapons and RPGs.  WTF?

This did not contradict or indict the President’s re-election meme.

[pullquote]Nothing going on here, move along.  Move along.[/pullquote]

Out comes UN Ambassador Susan Rice to propound a fairy tale on five different Sunday talk shows.

1.  The UN Ambassador has nothing to do with the State Department’s security programs.

2.  The UN Ambassador has nothing to do with the Department of Defense’s military and quick reaction plans or forces.

3.  The UN Ambassador has nothing to do with the CIA’s intelligence gathering and analysis.

So, one has to ask — why would the UN Ambassador be involved at all?  Why?

Simple explanation, really.

The UN Ambassador is apparently a stooge who was prepared to mouth anything she was told by the President to keep from allowing the election meme to be contradicted.

It is not the act, it is the coverup

So, now we find out that there are a number of witnesses who have applied for official “whistleblower” status and who intend to retain counsel before testifying before a House committee trying to get to the bottom of things.

The notion of whistleblower status for folks who were witnesses to an armed attack is silly.  Well, it’s silly until one delves into the extent that the Administration has gone to suppress their testimony and to avoid identifying them in the first place.

The Congress and Executive branches are co-equal branches which must work with each other on such important matters such as oversight.  The notion that a member of the executive branch must seek whistleblower status — an official insurance policy against retaliation — defeats the purposes of these co-equal branches.  When stuff goes wrong, Congress is supposed to investigate as part of their oversight duty.  The Executive branch is supposed to cooperate.

The lies

So here are the lies and truths that will be revealed in the months ahead.

1.  The attack was not a demonstration spawned by vexed movie critics.  It was, in fact, an attack by Islamic extremists and Al Qaeda.

2.  The UN Ambassador’s explanation was not true.  The President and the UN Ambassador knew it was not true even before the first word came out of the UN Ambassador’s mouth.

3.  The CIA knew from the very beginning that the attack was the work of Islamic extremists and Al Qaeda.

4.  The CIA immediately informed the President, the State Department, the Department of Defense of the fact that the attack was the work of Islamic extremists and Al Qaeda.

5.  The Department of Defense did have assets — military assets — which could have come to the rescue of the beleaguered Ambassador.

6.  The Administration has threatened retaliation against witnesses whose testimony would reveal the truth of this matter.

7.  Then Secretary of State Clinton lied when she said she was not aware of any requests for enhanced security or fundamental security concerns emanating from Libya.

A dead Ambassador and three dead American heroes

America lost four good men on that fateful day.  Our Ambassador was murdered and three American heroes were killed.  It was an unprovoked attack on America.  It was a slaughter that calls out for an explanation and, yes, retaliation and revenge.

They were sacrificed unnecessarily —  perhaps by the inactions of those who have perpetrated this web of lies.

America’s honor is at stake here.  Do we lie to each other when difficult things happen?  When crisis strikes?

Are the machinations of a political campaign — even for the presidency — justification for lying to our people?  Our we that craven and small?

The sacrifice of these good men screams from their graves — GIVE US THE TRUTH.

It is time to cut the crap and tell the truth about Benghazi.  Mr President, you are shaming our Nation with your lies.

But, hey, what the Hell do I know anyway?  I’m just a Big Red Car.





4 thoughts on “The President Lied On Benghazi

    • .
      Hard to say. The Republicans had a false sense of comfort that was not substantiated by reality.

      I am sure that if the Benghazi truth had come out, it would have broken bad for the President.

      While many think of the election as having been a big victory, in fact, if you changed about 500K votes the outcome would have been different.

      Also, remember that if you pick up one vote from the other guy — he loses a vote and the other candidate picks up a vote. It is a two-fer, so in reality as few as 250K votes might have swung it.

      Coulda, woulda, shoulda.


  1. He has consistently lied about other things and the press covered up. For example, his relationship with Bill Ayers. Unfortunately, when you point out legit facts, you are categorized as a crackpot. People will say TBRC needs a tune up.

    • .
      I don’t know if you have seen the new Redford movie about the “Weathermen” or not but it is a good flick with a bit of a twist. Throws a bit of light on this silly domestic terrorist nonsense.

      The Ayers bunch — murderers — should be in jail.

      Candidate Obama not only got a pass on a lot of very disturbing information, the press championed his candidacy.


Comments are closed.