In the wake of the fatal attack on our Ambassador in Libya and three other Americans the Administration put forward the following line in a coordinated effort to blunt criticism in the weeks leading up to the election. Pete Wehner summarizes the Administration message:
Five days after the Benghazi massacre, Ambassador Rice went on five Sunday talk shows insisting that (a) we had “substantial security presence” at the consulate before the attack; (b) the attacks were spontaneous, not a pre-planned terrorist attack, and the result of “a small handful of heavily armed mobsters;” and (c) “a direct result of a heinous and offensive video that was widely disseminated.” On CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Rice said, “We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.”Just one problem. Not one word of Rice's claims, echoed by every Administration mouthpiece, was right. Defending Ambassador Rice Obama on Thursday said she: "had nothing to do with Benghazi." Why then was she front and center as the Administration spokesperson?
On Friday, General David Petraeus, conveniently taken out of the picture at the Central Intelligence Agency with a sex scandal first uncovered by a woman with links to the Obama White House, testified before Congress that the initial intelligence summary provided to the Administration for talking points DID contain direct references to terrorism and Al Queda involvement in the attacks.
Neither Petraeus, nor anyone else who testified seems to know how the talking points became so distorted in a way that coincidently was less damaging politically to Obama. For instance, who was it that changed the emphasis to the internet video as the source of the attack?
Meanwhile, sources reveal that intelligence briefings for President Obama after the attack made clear references to Al Queda involvement. Yet Obama continued to downplay the terrorist angle, highlight the film and campaign with the slogan "Al Queda is on the run."
The White House coverup of this matter is classic. If they have nothing to hide then why not tell us who it was that briefed Susan Rice, Obama and other Administration officials and gave them this false information? No need to hide behind the fig leaf of an ongoing investigation if you have nothing to hide.
Altering intelligence for political purposes is a serious issue. If a Republican Administration were accused of a similar act in the wake of a terrorist attack Democrats would already be calling for a Special Prosecutor and planning his impeachment. Not so with the affirmative action President.
The sad truth of all the events before, during and after this attack will one day come out. It's just a crime that American voters were not given the full facts before the election when they might have held the Obama Administration accountable for their lies, incompetence and indifference to the growing Al Queda threat!