Media Abetting Obama’s Benghazi Lies

After Candy Crowley’s outrageous intervention on behalf of President Obama during Tuesday night’s presidential debate, the debate moderator appeared on CNN and admitted that GOP challenger Mitt Romney had been right in his criticism of the administration’s dissembling on the Benghazi terrorist attack. Romney was “right in the main,” she said, but “picked the wrong word.” The incident exemplifies how both campaigns have allowed the issue to spiral into a small and convoluted argument of definitions and timelines. Media may be more than passively contributing to this muddying of the waters as they pretend to earnestly evaluate the idea that the president had seriously claimed that we had been attack by jihadi terrorists that night. But this discussion, to the extent conservatives have been sucked into it, only benefits the president and his attempt to obfuscate the egregious security lapses that took the lives of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya and the lies spun after their deaths.

The fact of the matter is that the Obama administration, for weeks, engaged in a blatant campaign of deception marketed to the public. The attack, the president and numerous officials said, was not a terrorist attack. Ambassador Chris Stevens was supposedly the victim of a protest gone wrong, an event which we now have little evidence even occurred. This process began early on, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, on September 12th and 14th, linked the anti-Islam video “Innocence of Muslims” to the attack, denouncing “inflammatory, despicable material posted on the Internet” and “an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with” both times she spoke about the attack in Benghazi.

But things only got more explicit from there. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice  appeared on five different Sunday news shows September 16th and told the nation that “the best information and the best assessment we have today is that in fact this was not a preplanned, premeditated attack…that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video[.]” The video had become the administration’s publicly stated rationale for the violence. So much so that Obama himself referenced it during an appearance on the David Letterman Show September 18th, when he claimed that an “extremely offensive video” was used as “an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the one, the consulate in Libya.”

It was not until public evidence began to mount against this line that the administration’s tune began to change. Both White House Secretary Jay Carney and Hillary Clinton finally admitted on September 21 and 22nd respectively that the assault on Benghazi was a terrorist attack. President Obama, on the other hand, was still blaming the video in an interview with Univision on the 20th as “something that is used as excuse by some to carry out inexcusable violent acts on westerners or Americans.” On the 24th, in an appearance on “The View” the president began to change his story, when he revealed that, based on the kind of weaponry used, the “ongoing assault…wasn’t just a mob action.”

Yet all of one day later, the president gave a a speech to the UN General Assembly where he again linked the attack with the video and the right of free speech. “There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an embassy.” It should also be noted that while much of this evolution was occurring, the administration had already spent $70,000 on a Pakistani ad campaign, starring the president and Mrs. Clinton, denouncing that video. Those ads began airing on September 20th.

On September 26th and 27th, Secretary Clinton and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta respectively acknowledged the terror connection–sort of. According to a senior State Department official, Clinton’s reference to Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb was only meant to be taken as a general reference to ongoing violence in the region, while Panetta said “it became clear that there were terrorists who planned that attack,” even as he declined to specify which group was responsible for Benghazi. “There’s a lot of different kinds of terrorism in that part of the world,” he contended.

On the 28th, the other part of the blame game began to take shape. A statement was released by Shawn Turner, the Director of Public Affairs for the office of the Director of National Intelligence, in which his agency took the blame for the “spontaneous” attack meme. On October 9th, State Department officials claimed the size and lethality of the Benghazi attack was “unprecedented”–even as they contradicted a previous State Department report given on September 12th, describing the same “spontaneous protests.” The revised information revealed there were no protests before the attack, that former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were killed by a mortar attack, and that officials remained in the dark regarding how ambassador Stevens made it from the compound to the hospital. That revised account was corroborated the next day by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb.

Finally on October 16th, Hillary Clinton took responsibility for the assault–sort of. “I take responsibility,” Clinton told CNN in an interview while in Peru. “I’m in charge of the State Department’s 60,000-plus people all over the world, 275 posts. The president and the vice president wouldn’t be knowledgeable about specific decisions that are made by security professionals.” Yet almost immediately after she accepted responsibility, she blamed the administration’s ever-changing story on the “fog of war.” “In the wake of an attack like this, in the fog of war, there’s always going to be confusion,” Clinton said. “And I think it is absolutely fair to say that everyone had the same intelligence. Everyone who spoke tried to give the information that they had. As time has gone on, that information has changed. We’ve gotten more detail, but that’s not surprising. That always happens.”

That the fog suddenly lifted the day before the second presidential debate is rather remarkable. So is the fact that Clinton was so willing to take the blame. During the 2008 presidential campaign, the former presidential candidate contended that “I believe we need a president who believed what Harry Truman believed, that the buck stops in the Oval Office.” Apparently Mrs. Clinton’s feelings on that score have also “evolved.”

The ongoing contradictions that have been disseminated by the Obama administration are either the result of an incompetent administration incapable of coordinating a coherent–and honest–narrative about what happened, or one so concerned with re-election and preserving the president’s image as someone making the world safer through his seriousness on terrorism that the administration clung to this ruse as long as possible in hopes of waiting out the election.

If one accepts the former premise, then Hillary Clinton’s statement blaming the plethora of contradictory information over the past month on the “fog of war” can be taken at face value. Yet even here, the administration could have completely diffused the controversy by simply admitting they were in a fog about what really happened, right from the beginning. That they instinctively chose to spin this atrocity from day one is telling. If one accepts that latter premise, then the “fog of war” is nothing more than a convenient catch-phrase designed to absolve the Obama administration of the litany of lies they have perpetrated, the combined effect of which amounts to a disinformation campaign designed to sow confusion in the minds of Americans.

Such confusion ultimately accrues to the president’s benefit. A confused public ultimately becomes an uninterested public, as the effort to get to the truth becomes ever more complicated. And when it comes to the murder of four Americans, there is little doubt this administration would like nothing better than an uninterested public in the end stages of the presidential election.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • pierce

    It is most unfortunate that ms Crowley rescued Barack Obama from his faux pas. He has been getting away with misstatements, and false accusations, but those statements and accusations are starting to come back and haunt him. For 4 years he has been fabricating, but he can't do it any longer. His past is catching up to him. Thank you Candy for at least admitting to your error, to have done it at that exact moment would have been far more effective, but better late than never.

    • Herbster

      I believe that Candybar has since retracted her retraction…….

      • mlcblog

        ..but where was it published? does the general populace even know about it?

      • Kufar Dawg

        It reminds me of the old saw: "it's better to ask for forgiveness than permission." Yeah, I lied on behalf of the current POTUS, please forgive me.

  • EthanP

    Candy's interference and interuption bias against Romney should be roundly criticised. However, it would seem that the American People are wise enough to see it. The Presidents #s fall, Romney's #s rise.
    The MSM cringes in horror but not, as they should in shame.

  • Asher

    Obama said: We need to Re-Focus on Terrorists who actually attacked us, no mention of AlQaeda? AlQaeda is not on its heels, as a matter of fact AlQaeda is being Omitted from the rhetoric, because this administration considers them Freedom fighters. Terrorists groups in the Middle East are gaining strength, not loosing strength.

    • Herbster

      Excellent comment. However, we need to expand the terrorist list, as per Janet (Jack) Napolitano. Terrorist groups that must be closely monitored are, Nuns from Denmark, Texas Rabbis, Veterans, people who attend religious services on a weekly basis, Devout Christians and Jews, Legal gun owners, SUV owners, Hunters, registered Republicans, non-donors to planned parenthood, Black Republicans, Hispanic Republicans, Asian Republicans, Believers in the right of free speech, anyone who watches Fox News, home schoolers, etc.

      • Kufar Dawg

        Yes, depending on how you define terrorism, the war on terror really is over!

  • Schlomotion

    This article is a slushball. It is the same old tired indictments scraped up off the sidewalk after four weeks of rethrowing. Hasbarists were lucky to get a snowstorm on September 11th, but the remanufacture of the Benghazi attacks into a political weapon just doesn't have any sharp ice chips in it anymore. Splat. Mr. Ahlert is still trying to lob it, hoping to knock out Obama, or Hillary if he is lucky. This happens every election season, and on Frontpage, it happens year-round. Poison penmen try to ride a scandal and flog a dead horse hoping the bone splinters might still sting someone after weeks of cudgeling. There is more false hope in this act than in Obama's original campaign promises.

    • rjr

      Obama has already been "knocked out" of this election due to the stagnant economy and the escalating cost of living that is smacking all of us currently. Benghazi is proof that this administration thinks that America is full of Obama sycophants just willing to believe every pronouncment that comes from his lips. If you believe Bengahazi is a political weapon instead of a failure of this administration to protect a consulate when that consulate was crying out for protection than you are one of those sycophants.

      • Schlomotion

        Your comment is the equivalent of trying to snake a soda can out of the vending machine without paying. You have stacked your language up well, but it doesn't vaporize the President. We still have to go through the motions of an election.

        • Mo Schlotion

          I didn't know that snakes drank soda. Do hyenas eat ice cream?

        • Kufar Dawg

          I gather your first sentence is garnered from personal experience?

      • reader

        He's a Jew hating troll shilling for muslim brothers. That's all that he believes. The rest is just variations of his stale takiyya.

    • Advocatus

      Oh wow, Schlo has hit on another inane analogy and has thrashed it to death with hammer-tap bon mots in the service of another non sequitur while employing the palliative properties of mixed metaphors and supercilious verbosity as he machineguns his ideological opponents with baleful miasmas of ad honimem effluence.

    • Pontotoc Bill

      SchloMo, your use of "hasbarists" (and various spellings) proves that you are nothing but an Jew hating, Islam supporting mental midget who has nothing to offer any debate. Tey again.

    • Kufar Dawg

      You forgot to blame the Jews.

      • Ghostwriter

        Don't worry,Kufar. His "Hasbarists" reference is another word for Jews. And as we all know,Schlomotion hates Jews.

    • 1.37…

      Mahmud ibn Schlockmotion writes "blah blah frigggging blah…."

      Fine. Who cares? No one.

      However, there is a Good Thing.

      What is it? The Good Thing is that Mahmud ibn Schlockmotion, having no one to love him, is going to cry all by himself the night of the election when his boy is defeated at the polls.

      Suck on your turds, Mahmud ibn Schlockmotion. Now, swallow.

    • Omar

      Once again, the annoying Flipside always has to give us a contradiction to anything newsworthy. Why don't you do us a favor and quit annoying us with your propaganda.

  • BLJ

    The MSM sucks. Overpaid liberal scum.

  • clarespark

    Nearly everyone is missing one of the key elements in this disinformation campaign. The reason the video played such a large part is because "hate speech" has been outlawed as a solution to group and national conflict. It is an intrinsic component of "multiculturalism." I recommend this link to all my blogs on the subject:…. "Index to Multiculturalism blogs." I would start with "modernity and mass death," originally inspired by a UCLA Conference on the lethal effects of propaganda and images ca. 1992.

  • word to the wise

    let's also remember that the media, by willfully abetting obama's benghazi lies, also abets obama's willful aiding and abetting america's enemies in their war against us. obama's openly at war with the united states of america, and the media are serving as obama's ministry of war propaganda.

  • kasandra

    How can the media allow the administration get away with the "fog of war" meme? It may not have immediately known which groups were involved, where they went after the attack, how the Americans were killed, or what weapons were used but it certainly knew the attack was not a result of a mob protesting the film. How did it know that? Because there was no such protest in Libya and it knew that. It could have immediately said "This was a terrorist attack. We're exploring who was involved and where to find them" but to say it was the result of a protest of the film and that, because of the fog of war, it didn't know it was a terrorist attack for weeks after the attack was simply dezinformatsia. If not, three days after the attack I knew more about what happened in Benghazi than the U.S. administration knew and I seriously doubt that is the case.

  • ordinary guy

    I told a group of fellow congregants only two days after the attack that the video was a distraction from the obvious truth, namely, that the attack in Benghazi took place on September 11th, on the anniversary of the 9/11 attack in NYC! I'm no expert, I'm no prophet, no pundit, or anyone else of the sort. It's common sense.

  • Iratus Vulgas

    Never mind the intelligence timeline. The YouTube theory was idiotically lame from the start. It’s a bit frightening that any govt officials bought into it in the first place. I would think that anyone with average intelligence would have responded, “What moron in our intelligence department came up with that? Tell them to turn off the Cartoon Network and do some real work for a change.”

    • kasandra

      No "moron in our intelligence department came up with that." I've known quite a few intelligence officers and former intelligence officers and none would have done that either deliberately or through incompetence. It was clearly a political decision by the WHto take the approach the administration did because to acknowledge it was a terrorist attack would have: a) destroyed the administration's claim that al Qaeda is on the run; b) destroyed the administration's claim that the War on Terror is over; and c) brought up a lot of other issues concerning the president's Libyan adventure. These include, by way of example, the lie that our involvement did not contemplate regime change, was done only under the permission of the UN and not our Congress, that it brought AQIM into Libya, that it resulted in an Islamist government being brought into power in Mali, resulted in the murder of many black Africans in Libya, and made us complicit in Qadaffi's murder. Wouldn't want to bring up such issues in the middle of an election would we? Besides, by blaming it on a film it would have the benefit of being at least partially our fault.

      • Ghostwriter

        I have no sympathy for Qadaffi. This guy blew up discos,hijacked airliners,etc. The man was a terrorist.just like Bin Laden was. I'm not sorry the man is gone. He was a monster.

  • Jonathan Cousar

    Whether he called it terrorism on the first day or not is beside the point. No one cares! It's a side issue.

    What is a devastating indictment of Obama and his weakness on security – and the one Republicans should be driving home every day is that Obama not only refused REPEATED REQUESTS from the Ambassador himself for more security, but that he WITHDREW TWO SECURITY TEAMS in August! That's a devastating indictment on this president's failed policies when it comes to terrorism and security.

    And it's something people can really understand. In a very dangerous country, this president wasn't addint security – he was withdrawing it! Everybody understands that. All this talk about what he called it when is going over the heads of most people and they don't understand what all the fuss is about. But, if Romney and other Republicans would just state the case clearly and concisely as I did above, then it would really start to resonate with people.

    The Romney campaign should have been running ads showing Joe Biden at his debate saying we had plenty of security then showing the head of the Libya security team in the congressional hearing with Darrell Issa, saying they were begging for more and knew they wouldn't get it until AFTER someone died. Then close, with video of him saying it was like "the Taliban was on the inside of the (State Department) building." THAT WOULD BE DEVASTATING!

    • tom

      From the nytimes:" In 2011 and 2012, President Obama sought a total of $5 billion, and the House approved $4.5 billion. In 2009, Mr. Issa voted for an amendment that would have cut nearly 300 diplomatic security positions. And the draconian budgets proposed by Mitt Romney’s running mate, Representative Paul Ryan, would cut foreign affairs spending by 10 percent in 2013 and even more in 2016."

      • Jonathan Cousar

        Go to cspan and watch the Darrell Issa hearing from a couple of weeks ago. The woman at the State Department who was in charge of approving or denying these requests was asked point blank – if money was the issue. And she said, "NO"!

        So your whole argument is bogus and completely irrelevant to this situation. Money wasn't the reason they removed security teams instead of sending more – bad ideology was. They only had like 12 security people there. So no matter how much any budgets were cut – they could have easily afforded two or three times that number. It's not like the US government with its trillion dollar budgets couldn't have sent 20 or 30 more good men.

  • Kufar Dawg

    Panetta said ”There’s a lot of different kinds of terrorism in that part of the world,” he contended.

    Duh, and all of it is islamic.

  • DocRoxAll

    This administration has bet ALOT on saying its been our past administration's fault that we were attacked…that argument falls apart…does it not…if their bowing, apologizing antics result in the same outcome?!

  • amused

    Obama's exact words Sept.12 , 2012
    "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done "

    This is why Romney and all of you are full of it .

    • 1.37…

      Hmmmmm …. it appears you don't like "us"….

      Too bad. We don't like you.

      By the way, stock up on anti-depressants now – your boy is going to be defeated in November, and it is going to be a tough four years for you.


  • amused

    SO What's Next FPM ? – trashing the WOMAN who asked the question on equal pay ?
    C'mon now guys ,don't let the rest of the Right wing blogs get a leg up on you ! Be the first to screech and whine .

  • jacob

    With all due respect, in my book ROMNEY has shown to me to be an improved version of poor McCAIN,
    but a Mc.CAIN nevertheless….
    If he could put up with OBAMA's interruptions and didn't bother to tell him in plain colloquial English to
    SHUT THE HELL UP and read the riot act to he shameless PARTIALITY of that piece of….work of a
    "moderator" then I don't believe his being able to defeat the Chicago dirty politician he is running
    Would I have been in his shoes, I would have spat on her moon's face….
    It irked me so much that I didn't bother to watch the trird segment of the debate…
    What I will never be able to understand, is if how come ROMNEY never botheres to call on OBAMA
    to list his administration "achievements" and then make mince meat of every one of them, which is
    just what OBAMA would have done in his place…..

    • Jonathan Cousar

      That's why you're not, nor will you ever be – in his shoes.

  • Amused

    Mr President , what did you say in the Rose Garden about Benghazi , / "I said it was an act of terror " /Mr.President why did you wait 14 dys before you told the American People , that we had to hear it from a UN Ambassador ? / " I said it was an act of terror " /What did you say in the Rose garden ,Mr. President , you didn't call it an act of terror …..'''''' ROMNEY SET HIS OWN TRAP WHERE THERE WAS NO TRAP AND PROMPTLY FELL IN TO IT > ROMNEY MADE A FOOL OF HIMSELF AND CONTINUED TO DO SO , UNTIL CROWLEY ACTUALLY THREW ROMNEY A LIFE_LINE / To stop him from making a bigger fool of himself ,exposed in a lie and continuing to try to save face after being exposed .
    Are you people living on the same planet ? Do you have special filters on your Tv screens ? Clearly Romney shot himself in the foot and continued firing . Romney lost the debate ,although not in your minds but in everyone elses . You better hope he is better advised before the next one .

    • Maxie