Benghazigate: Obama Now Blaming Petraeus for Rice’s Video Lie

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


During the debates, Obama and his media cronies insisted that he had always called the Benghazi attacks terrorism. Now that he wants to move Ambassador Rice into Hillary Clinton’s job, after Rice spent days lying about Benghazi being a spontaneous protest over a video, it’s back to Square One and claiming that no one knew that Benghazi was a planned and armed assault.

Obama has to pick a lie and stick with it. Either no one had any idea that Benghazi was anything but a spontaneous protest. Or everyone knew it was a terrorist attack. The current incarnation of the lie is that Obama knew it was a terrorist attack and condemned it as such, but for some reason, his UN Ambassador did not.

Since this version of the lie makes Rice look even more incompetent, the blame has to be passed to somebody. And guess who usually gets the blame for lies about foreign wars told by politicians? The same guy currently being humiliated in the media for something that would be another day at the job for 2 out of 3 past Democratic presidents.

CBS “got hold of” CIA talking points which said that the Benghazi assault was one of those spontaneous protests with RPGs, multiple waves of attackers and checkpoints.

Meanwhile CNN is reporting that Petraeus wants to tell Congress that he was aware right away that this was a terrorist attack, which contradicts the desperate CBS claim that it’s the CIA’s fault that Rice spent days lying to the country and the world.

Despite the fact that

1. Communications about the attack had been intercepted beforehand

2. The attack used heavy weapons and took place at different locations and the Benghazi mission sent out messages warning that there were checkpoints being set up even before the attack.

3. Everyone in the security establishment was aware that Ansar Al-Sharia had claimed credit for the attack.

There could be a whole bunch of additional bullet points appended here, but the bottom line is that the entire attack in Benghazi was substantively different from the violent riots elsewhere.

Anyone claiming that a sustained assault was a spontaneous protest is so incompetent that there would be no room for them even in the Keystone Cops. Let alone running the security policy of the United States.

So there might well have been CIA talking points, but they weren’t drawn up at the initiative of the CIA, but at the initiative of the White House and State Department, which were still in cover-up mode.

The CBS/CIA’s talking points read as follows:

“The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.

This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated.

The investigation is on-going, and the US Government is working with Libyan authorities to bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of US citizens.”

This is not an intelligence briefing. This is a thin string of lies that you tell people to reassure them.

So now the CIA is taking the fall for Ambassador Rice’s lies, even though Rice had likely initiated the lies to begin with.

  • BLJ

    Typical Barry Soetoro. This creep is the biggest liar in the history of politics. That is saying alot.

    I hope the Republicans keep holding his feet over the fire on this. The Chosen One needs to spend some time in the Gray Bar Hotel for this one.

    • Mary Sue

      It's no surprise. Communists are liars; that is what they do. His mom was a commie, his dad was, his grandparents…

    • JAZ1965

      Yea, and still the stupid sheep keep going Baaaaa,.Baaaaaa,Baaaaaaa We should keep all the illegal aliens in this country and ship out the Sheep…

  • Mary Sue

    This is the legacy of Bill Clinton come to fruition. It's only OK when Democrats lie. If Republicans lie, they are terrible horrible people who should be put in the stocks and locked in jail and burned at the stake and then kept on bread and water for 6 weeks.

    Someone should tell the artist of that Obama comic up there that he forgot to draw the Unicorn as farting rainbows.

    • guest

      Or that the Unicorn is actually the Democratic donkey wearing a dunce cap.

  • http://twitter.com/11thdegree @11thdegree

    Benghazi? No such thing. Big Bird, binders, bayonets. Bread, circuses.

  • fanlad

    Keep on pressing, digging and shining the light. The rats are running for cover. The death of four courageous Americans demand that the truth be revealed to the American people.

  • hockeyboy88

    Light always displaces the dark. Darkness cannot displace light. Get it, got it, good!

  • Deerknocker

    As a lawyer I have some appreciation of the art of lying by telling the truth. The quoted talking points are a good example. First, the use of the word "demonstrations" to suggest something less than an attack. "Demonstration" could mean a pre-planned armed attack but most people would take it to mean a spontaneous shout fest. Next, the word "evolved" to suggest it began as something less than an attack and just grew like Topsy. (Apparently, the evolving demonstrators ran home to get their RPGs and mortars came back and set up checkpoints.) Then, there is the phrase "indications that extremists participated". This is a double whammy. First, "indications" is ever so amorphous. It covers everything from a rumor to rock solid proof. Second, the word "extremist". "Extremist" can cover almost anyone from libertarians to jihadis. Dare not call the participants terrorists. Finally "this assessment may change … as currently available information continues to be evaluated." This is like saying "we can change this interpretation if we decide to re-evaluate the information we have in hand." Very nice escape hatch.

    My read is that the author of the talking points knew damn well that the attack was a terrorist attack from start to finish, but crafted a statement that a normal reader would take to mean that the affair evolved from a run of the mill demonstration of angry muslims to a military type attack. The best lie is when you tell the truth in a way that most will take to mean something else.

    • curmudgeon

      i get it about the lies, but i am havng a hard time seeing any truth being used to tell those lies.

    • JacksonPearson

      Multiple spun stories coming from the Obama administration, are not the truth.

  • jemaasjr

    If I were going to do a bet on this, even odds, I would bet on Obama. Amazing what you can get away with and disappointing how easy it is to manipulate a lot of people. You harass generals over what are more or less ordinary indiscretions that would otherwise be ignored, say anything, and you get what you want because time hurries on. And it is not fooling people, actually, because anybody who really thinks about it can see through it. But since most people are not thoughtful, distractions are enough. And so the distraction of a sexual peccadillo gives the president cover.

  • Buheheh

    Lies come in various colours; the truth is clear to see.

    President Obama is the most colourful person in the world today.