There’s new evidence, obtained by ABC, that the Obama administration did deliberately purge references to “terrorism” from accounts of the attack on the Benghazi diplomatic mission, which killed four people including the US ambassador to Libya.
Conservatives have long maintained that the administration deliberately suppressed the truth about the attacks.
This is the first hard evidence that the state department did ask for changes to the CIA’s original assessment.
Specifically, they wanted references to previous warnings deleted and this sentence removed: “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.”
There’s little doubt in my mind that this will haunt Hillary Clinton if she decides to run for president, unless she executes some pretty fancy footwork.
State department spokesperson Victoria Nuland is directly implicated, and the fingerprints of senior White House aides Ben Rhodes and Jay Carney are there as well.
And look at this closely:
In the interests of full disclosure I have to say I have not in the past been persuaded that allegations of a cover-up were a big deal. It seemed to me a partisan attack based on very little.
I remember listening to reports from the BBC and others at the time that did suggest the attack in Benghazi was a spontaneous reaction to a rather puerile anti-Islamic video.
I understand President Barack Obama’s careful use of the word “terrorism” when it actually means something, rather than as a knee-jerk description of any violence by foreigners against Americans, often in order to justify a “war on terror”.
But the evidence is there in black and white, unless we doubt the documents obtained by ABC, which I don’t.
Mr Obama’s critics are often not very clear what is behind their allegations. I presume they think that the White House wanted to avoid claims the murders were the result of terrorism because this would undermine his claim that al-Qaeda was seriously “degraded”. There’s also a vague sense he’s “soft on terror”.
The purpose of this deception was to make the American people re-elect Democrats who are soft on terrorism, by hiding the fact that Democrats are soft on terrorism. Democrats prefer to think that Tea Party, low-tax, small government, pro-life conservatives are terrorists. Not the radical Muslims who actually do terrorist attacks in the real world. Democrats think they need to be affirmed and defended from criticism.
Frankly, I think that Obama should feel obligated to resign over this self-serving deception. If the media had done their jobs before the election, we wouldn’t have this man as President. As it stands, we’ll just have to vote his America-blaming, terrorist-sympathizing Democrat Party out in 2016.
- ABC News: State Department scrubbed terrorism details from Benghazi talking points
- What we learned from the Benghazi whistle-blowers
- Whistle-blower: State Department cut counterterrorism experts out of Benghazi decisions
- Official: We knew Benghazi was a terrorist attack “from the get-go”
- Benghazi whistle-blower: assets to protect the embassy were available
- Hysterical Hillary Clinton shrieks out her victimhood over Benghazi cover-up
- Benghazi security officials on the ground contradict CIA’s account
- Obama administration refused to engage top counter-terrorism resource for Benghazi
- Classified cable sent on August 16th warned of vulnerability of Benghazi consulate
- Requests for support from Benghazi defenders denied by the Obama administration
- White House told that terrorists took credit for Benghazi attack within two hours
- Unmanned drone observed Benghazi attack, no help sent for 7 hours
- CIA in Libya reported that Benghazi was a terrorist attack in first 24 hours
- Obama’s Watergate: State Department falsifies Obama’s Benghazi cover-up
- Benghazi attack was a massive failure of Obama’s security policy
- Obama justifies censorship by blaming a Youtube clip for a planned terrorist attack