Libya and Lies

It was a little much when President Barack Obama said that he was “offended” by the suggestion that his administration would try to deceive the public about what happened in Benghazi. What has this man not deceived the public about?

Remember his pledge to cut the deficit in half in his first term in office? This was followed by the first trillion dollar deficit ever, under any President of the United States — followed by trillion dollar deficits in every year of the Obama administration.

Remember his pledge to have a “transparent” government that would post its legislative proposals on the Internet several days before Congress was to vote on them, so that everybody would know what was happening? This was followed by an ObamaCare bill so huge and passed so fast that even members of Congress did not have time to read it.

Remember his claims that previous administrations had arrogantly interfered in the internal affairs of other nations — and then his demands that Israel stop building settlements and give away land outside its 1967 borders, as a precondition to peace talks with the Palestinians, on whom there were no preconditions?

As for what happened in Libya, the Obama administration says that there is an “investigation” under way. An “on-going investigation” sounds so much better than “stonewalling” to get past election day. But you can bet the rent money that this “investigation” will not be completed before election day. And whatever the investigation says after the election will be irrelevant.

The events unfolding in Benghazi on the tragic night of September 11th were being relayed to the State Department as the attacks were going on, “in real time,” as they say. So the idea that the Obama administration now has to carry out a time-consuming “investigation” to find out what those events were, when the information was immediately available at the time, is a little much.

The full story of what happened in Libya, down to the last detail, may never be known.

But, as someone once said, you don’t need to eat a whole egg to know that it is rotten. And you don’t need to know every detail of the events before, during and after the attacks to know that the story put out by the Obama administration was a fraud.

The administration’s initial story that what happened in Benghazi began as a protest against an anti-Islamic video in America was a very convenient theory. The most obvious alternative explanation would have been devastating to Barack Obama’s much heralded attempts to mollify and pacify Islamic nations in the Middle East.

To have helped overthrow pro-Western governments in Egypt and Libya, only to bring anti-Western Islamic extremists to power would have been revealed as a foreign policy disaster of the first magnitude. To have been celebrating President Obama’s supposedly heroic role in the killing of Osama bin Laden, with the implication that Al Qaeda was crippled, would have been revealed as a farce.

Osama bin Laden was by no means the first man to plan a surprise attack on America and later be killed. Japan’s Admiral Yamamoto planned the attack on Pearl Harbor that brought the United States into World War II, and he was later tracked down and shot down in a plane that was carrying him.

Nobody tried to depict President Franklin D. Roosevelt as some kind of hero for having simply authorized the killing of Yamamoto. In that case, the only hero who was publicized was the man who shot down the plane that Yamamoto was in.

Yet the killing of Osama bin Laden has been depicted as some kind of act of courage by President Obama. After bin Laden was located, why would any President not give the go-ahead to get him?

That took no courage at all. It would have been far more dangerous politically for Obama not to have given the go-ahead. Moreover, Obama hedged his bets by authorizing the admiral in charge of the operation to proceed only under various conditions.

This meant that success would be credited to Obama and failure could be blamed on the admiral — who would join George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton and other scapegoats for Obama’s failures.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • posse101

    Hillary sold her soul to lie for Obama. well at least that small sliver she had left after her campaign for the Senate seat from New York… her… uh… home town.

  • dannyjeffrey44

    And, as the Obama meltdown begins it seems that Hillary is assembling a legal team. Hope she has a good treason lawyer on the staff. What I have collected is but the tip of the iceberg but it is a start. Team Obama may have set the stage for a new Nuremberg trial.

  • weroinnm

    Middle East Analyst: U.S. Appeases Muslim Brotherhood; Syria in Possession of Missiles!
    “Food For Thought”

    Semper Fi!


  • Alex Kovnat

    First, I’d like to say I’m glad to see something written by Thomas Sowell. I was concerned that, having not seen anything written by him lately, that he was fading from the scene like Ronald Reagan just two or so years after leaving the White House.

    I am greatly concerned that Obama, in claiming at first that the attack on the American embassy in Benghazi was provoked by a YouTube video, knew – or should have known – that the attack was not spontaneous, but well planned in advance. If this is so, we need to ask whether George Bush would have been held to a higher standard regarding telling the truth.

    I have been saying for years that to claim Islam is just another form of religious expression, is like saying Communism is just another form of political expression. I am fond of telling those I talk to, that if Fidel Castro had been born in Yemen or Egypt, he would have been a fanatical Islamist. And if Osama Bin Laden had been born in Cuba or El Salvador, he would have become a fanatical Communist. It is a tragedy that Obama won’t accept this fundamental reality.

  • Western Spirit

    Remember Benghazi? What a crock, in the last days before the election Obama is saying trust me because Mitt Romney is untrustworthy when this incident proves he is can't be trusted. He did nothing to help save American's lives and lied to cover up his bad policies.

    At least Obama's offensive against him shows the wisdom of Mitt's behavior in the last debate by not giving the president anything to discredit him.

    Now Romney can use Benghazi to prove Obama's campaign claim to trustworthiness is untrue, during the debate it was premature.

  • Chanameel

    If the "goal of the New World Order" is to Islamisize the world ….

    through "Globalization."

    then it is obvious that they are meeting their goals.

    As our President Obama lead 50,000 muslim men in a Day of Prayer in September 2009 and prayed on

    the Mall in Washington, DC, for "The Soul of America." This was an occult rite of "surrender" and also

    determines the "future destiny" of America.

  • ORPO1

    As the earlier commentator said…….Hillary may need a very good lawyer.
    This could be the one thing that will destroy Obama's credibility.

  • WilliamJamesWard

    Obama has set up his investigation……….should have appointed big bird and admirer of
    his bird brain ideas……….Naturally the outcome will be that the Republicans were behind
    the attack in Benghazi and the entrenous decisions of Romney and Ryan with nothing to
    do with his exaltedness…………….To late for Clinton to take a powder, unless it's some kind
    of white powder which must be in use with outcomes evident………………..William

  • Marvin Fox

    The disregard for what was happening in Benghazi Libya goes way beyond the boundary of incompetence. If what I have been hearing and seeing from the news is correct, I believe there should be a criminal investigation. I appears to me that criminal negligence may be a better word for what was done. The White House Situation Room is said to have seen the attack's last 6 hours in real time from a Drone flying above the compound. Those responsible were also said to have received requests for help from the murdered Ambassador in time to put Fighter aircraft overhead, possibly in time to save lives. The White House is reported to be refusing to say when Obama received information on the attack. I am wondering if stonewalling is a strong enough word to describe the covering actions for the denial of that request.
    Marvin Fox

  • James

    I'm no fan of Obama, but killing Bin Laden is an achievement that you cannot take away from him. Obama claimes that he prioritized the search for Bin Laden; and George W Bush's prolonged failure to catch Bin Laden was so ignominious that people began to wonder whether the President and the neocons preferred to keep Bin Laden alive.