Benghazigate: Obama’s Many Lies About Libya

In his interview with MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Obama claimed to take offense at, “The suggestion that in any way, we haven’t tried to make sure that the American people knew as the information was coming in what we believed.”

That sentence is not only incredibly convoluted, shifting the blame not just to the intel, but to the perception of that intel held by some vague group of “We’s” who may include anyone in the administration. But it’s a ridiculous finger wagging moment from a man who repeatedly blamed the video for a heavily armed assault on an American consulate.

The man who only told the American people about the Libyan War several days after it began, who has lied about Fast and Furious, who even in the language of his own media supporters runs the least transparent administration since King George III has no right to act offended when he is challenged for putting out gross misinformation and locking up a filmmaker based on that misinformation.

The feigned self-righteousness is Obama’s version of Clinton’s “finger-wagging” moment over accusations of improprieties.

Libya is to Obama as Monica was to Clinton.

1. Obama lied about the cause of the war in the form of a supposed massacre of 70,000 people that threatened Benghazi.

2. Obama lied about the purpose of the war, claiming that the goal was not regime change. He lied about this to the UN and to the American people.

3. Obama lied about our level of collaboration with the rebels, which was not supposed to exist at all, but involved coordinating their movements and attack plans

4. Obama lied about the duration of the war and about ending American participation in the war shortly after it began

5. Obama lied about having American personnel on the ground during the war, as reported by the New York Times

With all those lies, his show of self-righteousness is pathetically misplaced.

The official fallback story is that Obama had “bad intel” on what happened in Benghazi. This “bad intel” somehow caused Obama and his officials to continue spouting nonsense about a video and a protest, at a time when even those of us in the cheap seats were accurately reporting that this had been a planned attack. So either our “intel” is better than the CIA’s, or the problem wasn’t with the intel. Not when one of the first reports had already nailed Ansar Al-Sharia as the perpetrators and everyone knew that heavy weaponry, completely inconsistent with a spontaneous protest, had been used against the consulate.

But reporters are now carefully phrasing leading questions for Obama and his cronies, complete with “bad intel”. These questions wouldn’t be allowed in court, but they’re fine for the professional class of journalists who include the alibi as a premise in their questions.

A classic example of this travesty took place on Morning Joe. “Scarborough aided and abetted him by asking, “Was it the intel community giving you bad information early on because the stories keep changing?”

The real question here is why the stories have kept changing. Scarborough tries to cover for Obama by blaming the bad intel for the obvious problem of the changing stories. But there is no evidence of bad intel. There is evidence of changing stories. And changing stories mean either incompetence or deceit.

Former National Security Adviser Bud McFarlane has said, “To have known what he had available, to have known that Americans were under fire, and to have done nothing, is dereliction of duty that I have never seen in a Commander in Chief from a president of any party. ”

  • David

    As bad as the attack and lost of life in Libya, I am struck with a complete disappointment in both the President and Media. I can understand that leaders sometimes make choices they later regret or wish they could do another way. The President might have made a bad call on what to do in the weeks leading up to the attack and during the attack. It is easier to look back weeks later and think we should have sent in a team or an air strike, but my major disappointment comes from President' Obama not willing to face the issue and deal with it. If he would only admit his regret and the failure, then we could focus on bringing the guilty to justice. He refuses to hold a press conference for fear of effecting his re-election. The media have failed to demand a press conference and the few that get to ask him questions let him get away with dodging the question and not giving any real answers. The longer this goes on the more it looks like a coverup, the more faith in journalism and integrity get eroded. Little bits of information leak out a trickle at a time, and without true investigative journalism no one can be sure who or what to believe.

    The death of Americans is a tragic loss and so is the death of journalism that seeks the truth no matter where it points.

  • John D

    People accuse me of hating the President. I hate the media far more.

  • Mary Sue

    This reminds me somewhat of the coverups in the past, particularly concerning the Clintons, though where the Clintons were concerned there was hardly anything this egregious or international in scope. Poor Vince Foster must be spinning in his grave.

    • proof reader

      really arming the terrorist arabs in Israel wasn't worse than OB arming terrorist in Lyiba?

      • Mary Sue

        Well I was thinking more of Whitewater and stuff like that, although there was also the Loral Space thing (though nobody died for that).

        But yeah, I'd forgotten about that…

  • Barbara O'Leary


  • PAthena

    The behaviour of President Obama about the debacle in Benghazi reminds me of his "Fast and Furious" actions. Is his present behaviour a cover for his past illegal war in Libya, to justify it?

  • Kristi Kor

    The President is a liar and very wicked man. I don't think the writers of 24 could have written
    this script. I am sickened by so many that continue to believe the lies and actually support this pretend commander in chief. Feel sick inside. There is true evil at work.

  • Charles Hodge

    well the truth will come out at some point. we already know he lied. and we know the media sticks up for him. what we don't know is why! i think it's sad where this country is right now. i still find it hard to believe people want him in. we have a so called man in the white house who yet takes any blame on his behalf. is america and media afraid to stand up to him because of the color of his skin? are they afraid they will be called a racist? all i know is this country is so devided it isn't funny. congress needs to step up and do something. media needs to do it's job. at times i feel were a 3rd word country. how can this be america? and why are they taking the GREAT out of our nation. we need to get the white house back. we need to restore order. democrats and the media has done enough. but i guess this is what happens when you take GOD ALMIGHTY out of america. im sorry if you think i went to far. but this is how i feel at this point. and i love the usa. i just hate where it's heading!

  • Michael Harris

    Daniel makes one mistake. Benghazi is Obama's Watergate except the Washington Post and NY Times are silent. They brought down Nixon and prostitute themsrelves for Obama

    • Mary Sue

      yeah this is the equivalent of if Woodward and Bernstein helped cover for Nixon during Watergate.