Why would he be concerned?
A) He and his administration were the ones telling her to lie to the American people after the attacks in Benghazi.
B) The American people indicated that they don’t particularly care about being lied to when they voted him back in.
In response to a question from reporter Major Garrett on whether the Obama administration’s mishandling of Benghazi raises “core questions of basic competency,” press secretary Jay Carney revealed that Barack Obama “is not particularly concerned” about whether Susan Rice misled the American people:
“What the president is worried about, Major, is what happened and why in Benghazi. He is not particularly concerned about whether the ambassador or I went out and talked about the fact that we believed extremists might have been responsible. And whether we named them as al Qaeda or not does not–no, it certainly doesn’t have any bearing on what happened and who was responsible as that investigation was continuing on Benghazi.”
Here’s the video…
Classified Cable Shows State Department Was Warned That Benghazi Consulate Could Not Withstand Coordinated Attack
No wonder Fox News crushes in ratings. They actually do the job of journalists.
A new secret cable has been revealed that shows Hillary Clinton’s State Department was warned less than a month in advance of the Benghazi terror attack, that security personnel at the consulate had deep concerns that they could not withstand a coordinated enemy attack.
Notice that they did not say that they couldn’t withstand a spontaneous protest over a video. But rather, they could not withstand a coordinated terror attack. Something in which four Americans fell victim to less than a month later.
Via Fox News:
The U.S. Mission in Benghazi convened an “emergency meeting” less than a month before the assault that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, because Al Qaeda had training camps in Benghazi and the consulate could not defend against a “coordinated attack,” according to a classified cable reviewed by Fox News.
Summarizing an Aug. 15 emergency meeting convened by the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, the Aug. 16 cable marked “SECRET” said that the State Department’s senior security officer, also known as the RSO, did not believe the consulate could be protected.
“RSO (Regional Security Officer) expressed concerns with the ability to defend Post in the event of a coordinated attack due to limited manpower, security measures, weapons capabilities, host nation support, and the overall size of the compound,” the cable said.
According to a review of the cable addressed to the Office of the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Emergency Action Committee was also briefed “on the location of approximately ten Islamist militias and AQ training camps within Benghazi … these groups ran the spectrum from Islamist militias, such as the QRF Brigade and Ansar al-Sharia, to ‘Takfirist thugs.’” Each U.S. mission has a so-called Emergency Action Committee that is responsible for security measures and emergency planning.
The details in the cable seemed to foreshadow the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. compound, which was a coordinated, commando-style assault using direct and indirect fire. Al Qaeda in North Africa and Ansar al-Sharia, both mentioned in the cable, have since been implicated in the consulate attack.
The report then summarizes the implication in having this secret cable perfectly:
“It was a direct warning to the State Department that the Benghazi consulate was vulnerable to attack, that it could not be defended and that the presence of anti-U.S. militias and Al Qaeda was well-known to the U.S. intelligence community.”
Biggest cover up in White House history?
A federal terrorism sting has led to the arrest of a Bangladeshi national for a bomb threat targeting the National Reserve in Lower Manhattan.
Quazi Mohammad Rezwanul Ahsan Nafis , 21, was arrested this morning in downtown Manhattan after he allegedly attempted to detonate what he believed to be a 1,000-pound bomb at the New York Federal Reserve Bank on Liberty Street in lower Manhattan’s financial district.
The suspect was arraigned in federal court in Downtown Brooklyn and remanded without bail.
Agents set up a sting and he was caught and taken into custody according to officials.
Nafis attempted to detonate a van that he thought was laced with the explosives, from a hotel across the street from the World Trade Center site. Nafis also claimed to have overseas connections to Al-Qaeda and had recorded a martyrdom video.
“This individual came here for the purpose of doing a terrorist act,” Police Commissioner Ray Kelly told reporters. “He was motivated by Al Qaeda, so we see this threat as being with us for a long time.”
No word on whether or not the administration will argue Kelly’s claims of a motivation by saying the suspect was angry about an anti-Islam video.
Fortunately, when the President does get around to calling this a terrorist plot two weeks from now, Candy Crowley will be there to hold his hand.
In related news, the President is dropping the phrase ‘Al Qaeda is on the run’ from his campaign speeches.
Via Fox News:
President Obama may be recalibrating his campaign rhetoric on Al Qaeda, in the aftermath of the Libya terror attack.
Before that attack and as recently as a week ago, Obama had taken to saying Al Qaeda is on the road to defeat. During a Miami stop on Oct. 11, he said: “And today, Al Qaeda is on the run and Osama bin Laden is dead.”
But at the debate Tuesday and on the campaign trail Wednesday, the Al Qaeda reference appeared to have been walked back.
The Obama administration’s story on the attacks that killed four Americans unravels even further.
Watch the report:
“Details that we have never heard before about what went down. And this is significantly different than what we were told at the time.”
“At the time as you recall we were told it was a protest that went bad and became an attack. Now we are told there was no protest going on outside that embassy.”
“A very complex attack. Without precedent in U.S. diplomatic history.”
Refresher from ABC News, three days after the attack:
The attack that killed four Americans in the Libyan consulate began as a spontaneous protest against the film “The Innocence of Muslims,” but Islamic militants who may have links to Al Qaeda used the opportunity to launch an attack, CIA Director David Petreaus told the House Intelligence Committee today according to one lawmaker who attended a closed-door briefing.
Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, the top Democrat on the House Intel committee, said Petraeus laid out “a chronological order exactly what we felt happened, how it happened, and where we’re going in the future.”
“In the Benghazi area, in the beginning we feel that it was spontaneous – the protest- because it went on for two or three hours, which is very relevant because if it was something that was planned, then they could have come and attacked right away,” Ruppersberger, D-Md., said following the hour-long briefing by Petraeus. “At this point it looks as if there was a spontaneous situation that occurred and that as a result of that, the extreme groups that were probably connected to al Qaeda took advantage of that situation and then the attack started.”
Obama, September 20th:
“What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”
CBS reporter Lara Logan stepped out of the role of journalist, and into the role of American citizen screaming about her government’s lies regarding the enemy her country faces – the Taliban.
From the Chicago Sun-Times:
“I chose this subject because, one, I can’t stand, that there is a major lie being propagated . . .” Logan declared in her native South African accent.
The lie is that America’s military might has tamed the Taliban.
“There is this narrative coming out of Washington for the last two years,” Logan said. It is driven in part by “Taliban apologists,” who claim “they are just the poor moderate, gentler, kinder Taliban,” she added sarcastically. “It’s such nonsense!”
Logan then goes on to rip what she calls “Taliban apologists” in Washington who have tried to falsely portray the enemy as ‘kinder’ and ‘gentler’.
“It’s such nonsense,” she added.
Logan believes the false narrative is an attempt by the administration to get America out of the longest war, but that it only provides a false sense that the perils of the enemy are in the past.
It’s a rather frightening account from somebody in the know.
Logan concludes, “Our enemies are writing the story, and there’s no happy ending for us.”
An amazing new video from our friends at the Heritage Foundation.
New evidence shows there were security threats in Libya in the months prior to the deadly September 11 attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. Despite these threats, the State Department left its personnel there to fend for themselves.
Bombshell: Administration Knew Attacks That Killed Ambassador Stevens Were the Work of Terrorists Within 24 Hours
Even yesterday, the President himself was lying to the world in front of the United Nations, refusing to call the attacks in Libya ‘terrorist’ in nature, and instead spending several minutes talking about a video that nobody in their right mind believes caused the violence.
Five days after the attack on the Benghazi consulate that left four Americans dead, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, the Obama administration sent UN Ambassador Susan Rice onto five Sunday talk shows to insist that the sacking of the consulate was the result of a protest over a YouTube video that “spun out of control.” The government of Libya was already scoffing at that story, and by the end of the next week the White House began reluctantly admitting that terrorists had attacked the diplomatic mission. Today, however, Eli Lake reports for the Daily Beast that the Obama administration knew within 24 hours that the attack had not been a spontaneous event, but a well-planned terrorist attack:Within 24 hours of the 9-11 anniversary attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi, U.S. intelligence agencies had strong indications al Qaeda–affiliated operatives were behind the attack, and had even pinpointed the location of one of those attackers. Three separate U.S. intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast said the early information was enough to show that the attack was planned and the work of al Qaeda affiliates operating in Eastern Libya. …The intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast did so anonymously because they weren’t authorized to speak to the press. They said U.S. intelligence agencies developed leads on four of the participants of the attacks within 24 hours of the fire fight that took place mainly at an annex near the Benghazi consulate. For one of those individuals, the U.S. agencies were able to find his location after his use of social media. “We had two kinds of intelligence on one guy,” this official said. “We believe we had enough to target him.”Another U.S. intelligence official said, “There was very good information on this in the first 24 hours. These guys have a return address. There are camps of people and a wide variety of things we could do.”A spokesman for the National Security Council declined to comment for the story. But another U.S. intelligence official said, “I can’t get into specific numbers but soon after the attack we had a pretty good bead on some individuals involved in the attack.”In other words, either Susan Rice lied to the press, or was lied to by the Obama administration and sent out to the press deliberately. That leaves the national media in a quandry. Clearly, with only a couple of exceptions, the media hasn’t wanted to address the implications of a successful terrorist attack on an American diplomatic installation … at least not during the Barack Obama presidency. Now it’s becoming very clear that the administration didn’t just tell them to “f*** off,” the White House actively lied about the attack in order to deflect further questions from the media.
This is huge, huge news, and is a clear demonstration that the Obama administration will jump first to protect the terrorists and radical Islam, well before they will act to protect the lives of innocent Americans.
U.S. Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) today released the following joint statement on President Obama’s recent comments about “bumps in the road” in the Middle East on his watch:
“President Obama recently said the broader Middle East has been experiencing some ‘bumps in the road.’ If the President had taken some time to hold even one meeting with his foreign colleagues during his visit to the U.N. General Assembly in New York today, perhaps they would have told him what has really happened in the Middle East on his watch.
“It is not a ‘bump in the road’ when American embassies, and those of our friends and allies, are attacked by hateful mobs who also murder their fellow citizens, allegedly because of a disgusting and bigoted video. That is the result of extremists who would seize on any opportunity to further their ideological agenda – extremists who have been gaining ground over the past two years.
“It is not a ‘bump in the road’ when Al-Qaeda fighters and their terrorist allies have been gaining ground in Libya, a country the United States helped to liberate but has not sufficiently supported in its ongoing struggle against lawlessness and violent extremism.
“It is not a ‘bump in the road’ when the relationship between the United States and Israel has never been worse at a time when the threat from Iran has never been greater and when events in the Middle East have never been more tumultuous or uncertain.
“It is not a ‘bump in the road’ when Israel and our Gulf partners have never had less confidence in the willingness of the American President to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.
“It is not a ‘bump in the road’ when more than 25,000 men, women, and children have been slaughtered by the Assad regime in Syria – a conflict that is destabilizing the region, putting weapons of mass destruction at risk, creating a new safe haven for Al-Qaeda and its terrorist allies, and growing more dangerous by the day for the United States and our allies. That is the result of the President’s complete lack of leadership and unwillingness to take the necessary actions together with our friends and allies that could end the violence and create the conditions for a negotiated transition to a more peaceful, democratic future in Syria.
“It is not a ‘bump in the road’ when a small group of insurgents are able to destroy nearly a quarter of a billion dollars in U.S. fighter aircraft in a single attack in Kandahar – or when the ‘insider attacks’ against our forces and those of our allies have risen to such an extent that our commander has suspended training and joint operations with Afghan units, which is the core of our strategy to succeed. That is the result this Administration’s consistent efforts to cut corners in the war in Afghanistan – giving our commanders fewer troops than they recommended and withdrawing them in larger numbers and at a faster pace than our commanders advised, which is resulted in the very additional risks to our mission that our military leaders warned.
“It is not a ‘bump in the road’ when violence in Iraq is rising, the Iraqi political system is growing more authoritarian, Iranian meddling and influence is growing, and the Maliki government is allowing Iran to fly planeloads of weapons and fighters into Syria through Iraqi airspace. That is the result of a U.S. President who has squandered the gains of the surge in order to fulfill his campaign promise of withdrawing all U.S. troops from Iraq, even at the expense of our national security interests.
“None of these events are ‘bumps in the road.’ They are failures of American leadership. And they call for the United States to begin leading more actively, rather than trying to lead from behind.”
It was just over a year ago that Defense Secretary Robert Gates was hailing the President’s decision to raid the Osama bin Laden compound as a “gutsy call” and “one of the most courageous” he’s seen a president make.
Question: Is it still considered a ‘gutsy call’ if you avoided making the decision three times prior to finally pulling it off?
A campaign ad from team Obama previously questioned whether or not Mitt Romney would have the courage to make such a decision, but now it appears the President himself couldn’t pull the trigger on raiding the bin Laden compound on multiple occasions.
In a new book due to be released in August titled, Leading from Behind: The Reluctant President and the Advisors Who Decide for Him, author Richard Miniter reveals that President Obama may have called off the mission kill Osama bin Laden on three separate occasions.
Part of the book description on Amazon reads:
Obama delayed and canceled the mission to kill Osama bin Laden three times and then committed an intelligence blunder that allowed dozens of high-level members of al Qaeda to escape.
A new report from the Daily Caller cites a portion of the chapter in Leading From Behind which deals with the topic.
At the urging of Valerie Jarrett, President Barack Obama canceled the operation to kill Osama bin Laden on three separate occasions before finally approving the May 2, 2011 Navy SEAL mission, according to an explosive new book scheduled for release August 21. The Daily Caller has seen a portion of the chapter in which the stunning revelation appears…
… Richard Miniter writes that Obama cancelled the “kill” mission in January 2011, again in February, and a third time in March. Obama’s close adviser Valerie Jarrett persuaded him to hold off each time, according to the book.
Miniter, a two-time New York Times best-selling author, cites an unnamed source with Joint Special Operations Command who had direct knowledge of the operation and its planning. Obama administration officials also said after the raid that the president had delayed giving the order to kill the arch-terrorist the day before the operation was carried out, in what turned out to be his fourth moment of indecision.
Perhaps Obama doesn’t, as Joe Biden once claimed, possess “a backbone like a ramrod” after all.
Oh, the humanity! Who knew that having to watch Barney & Friends every hour on the hour with your child consisted of … gasp … torture?!
A new documentary alleges that detainees at Guantanamo Bay were “tortured” by being forced to listen to songs from Sesame Street for days on end.
The Al Jazeera film, “Songs of War,” features Christopher Cerf, who has worked as a composer on Sesame Street for more than four decades.
“My first reaction was this just can’t possibly be true,” the Grammy and Emmy award-winning composer told Al Jazeera.
“Of course, I didn’t really like the idea that I was helping break down prisoners, but it was much worse when I heard later that they were actually using the music in Guantanamo to actually do deep, long-term interrogations and obviously to inflict enough pain on prisoners so they would talk.”
In a report featuring the composer of the Sesame Street songs, one detainee actually says the following:
“The music was so loud,” says Moazzam Begg, a former detainee at Guantanamo Bay and Bagram. “And it was probably some of the worst torture that they faced.”
I wonder if all those people detained in the past by Al-Qaeda would have preferred torture by Sesame Street, as opposed to having their head sawed off of their body.
If given the choice, I’m sure Nick Berg would have been okay with it.