Carney: Obama ‘Not Particularly Concerned’ That Susan Rice Lied to the American People

November 28, 2012 at 9:42 pm (Al Qaeda, Benghazi, Extremists, Jay Carney, Major Garrett, President Obama, Susan Rice, Terrorists, White House)

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.

Via the Weekly Standard (h/t Memeorandum):

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…

Permalink Leave a Comment

Patronizing Democrats – Susan Rice Only Being Criticized Because She’s Black

November 16, 2012 at 4:07 pm (Benghazi, Congressional Black Caucus, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Libya, Lindsey Graham, Marcia Fudge, Minority, Ohio, Race Card, Republican, Susan Rice, United Nations, Women)

It remains a mystery in my eyes, how liberals and Democrats fail to recognize that by constantly playing the race card in every possible scenario, it ends up being patronizing to the minority group that they are actually trying to defend.

Case in point – voter ID.  Liberals would have you believe that getting a free photo identification from the local DMV, and making it necessary to vote in elections, would suppress the minority vote.  Now, the only way you can possibly believe that statement is true, is if in your own little head, you actually believe that those minority groups are too incompetent to attain the proper identification necessary to vote.  It’s the only way that statement rings true.

And now we have this…

Via Gateway Pundit:

Representative Marcia L. Fudge the next Chair of the 43-member Congressional Black Caucus released a statement today defending Ambassador Susan Rice.
Twelve liberal Democratic women in the House embarrassed themselves today by defending dunce Susan Rice over her bizarre Libya comments.
They said Rice was being attacked because she’s black.
ABC News reported:
A dozen female members of the House staunchly defended U.N. ambassador Susan Rice against Republican criticism over her remarks on the deadly Sept. 11 Libya attack, suggesting the GOP lawmakers’ comments were racist and sexist.
“It is a shame that anytime something goes wrong, they pick on women and minorities,” Rep. Marcia Fudge, D-Ohio, the next chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, told reporters Friday at a Capitol Hill news conference.
Republican Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham earlier this week called Rice untrustworthy and unqualified to be the nation’s top diplomat if President Barack Obama chooses her to succeed Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. The two vowed to block any Senate confirmation if she is nominated.

First off, Rice’s actions amount to one of two things.  She either knowingly lied about what had happened in Benghazi, or she was used as a puppet by the administration to feed the public their talking points.  If she lied, then she is unfit to serve in her current post, let alone as a replacement for Hillary Clinton.  If she was used to promote the administration’s lies, then they have also denigrated this African-American woman by using her as a tool rather than letting her do her job.

Second, to come to the conclusion that Rice is being attacked because she is a black woman, is to view her with a condescending level of tunnel vision.  The very people that are criticizing her are doing so because they view her as Susan Rice, United States Ambassador to the United Nations.  The people that are defending her do not look at her in the same manner.  Instead they patronizingly view her as a poor defenseless black woman incapable of standing up to her critics or defending her position.

When Susan Rice attained the tremendous heights that she has throughout her career, do you think she’d rather have been viewed as a successful overall individual, or do you think she’d prefer to be viewed as the career product of being a poor black woman?

There couldn’t be anything less racial about the entire Benghazi cover up.  And yet Democrats feel they still have to play that card.  The left consistently turns race into a political ploy.  If you’re a minority, don’t you feel a little bit embarrassed every time they do it?

Permalink Leave a Comment

Petraeus to ‘Amend’ His Testimony – Knew It Was Terrorism ‘Almost Immediately’

November 16, 2012 at 11:41 am (Ansar Al Sharia, Benghazi, Christopher Stevens, Congress, Cover Up, David Petraeus, Navy SEALs, Obama Administration, Scandal, Susan Rice, Terrorism, Testimony, White House)

CNN is reporting that a well-placed source has indicated that CIA Chief David Petraeus will ‘amend’ his previous testimony, telling Congress that he knew the attack in Benghazi that killed four Americans was terrorism, and that he knew this “almost immediately”.

Via Breitbart (h/t Memeorandum):

Just a few minutes ago on CNN, Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr reported that a high-placed source informed her that former CIA Chief David Petraeus will use his upcoming testimony to amend his previous testimony. According to this source, Petraeus will tell the closed door congressional hearing that he knew “almost immediately” that the September 11 anniversary attack on our Libyan consulate was a terrorist attack committed by the al-Qaeda-linked militia Ansar Al Sharia.

Frances Townsend, a former Homeland Security advisor to George W. Bush, who is now a CNN analyst, tweeted this out:

Of course Petraeus knew the attacks were terror related almost immediately.  The entire White House knew it as well.  On October 24th, we reported on e-mails sent to officials at the White House and the State Department, advising the administration within a couple of hours that the attacks were carried out by an Islamic militant group, Ansar Al Sharia, the same group Petraeus plans to note in his testimony.
Reuters reported:

Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.

The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.

The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.

U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Benghazi assault, which President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials ultimately acknowledged was a “terrorist” attack carried out by militants with suspected links to al Qaeda affiliates or sympathizers.

By ultimately, they mean several weeks later.  This is definitive proof that Obama’s White House was not getting bad reports and bad intelligence from the State Department or the intelligence community, and simply relaying mis-information that a video had sparked the attack.

They knew.  They knew, and they lied.

Which is precisely why GOP lawmakers have a hard time considering Susan Rice competent when she subsequently went on a whirlwind media tour five days later claiming that the attacks were a spontaneous response to an anti-Mohammad video.

Petraeus, in addition to his ‘amended’ testimony, also informed CNN’s source that “he believed the CIA talking points given to Susan Rice came from within the White House or Administration.”

Politico is also reporting on these statements from Sen. Saxby Chambliss:

Sen. Saxby Chambliss on Friday stopped short of charging that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s explanation of the attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi was a lie but said it was crafted to provide White House political talking points.

“Susan Rice was sent to give a White House message,” said Chambliss, vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “It was not an intelligence community message, and there’s a very clear distinction in that.”

“I do think that there were some politics involved in the message that the White House wanted to send,” he added.

Upon hearing President Obama’s touchy defense of Rice a couple of days ago, Charles Karuthammer had this to say:

You called at it a show of passion, I would say it was his usual show of indignation, which is his default response whenever he feels defensive or backed into a corner. ‘How dare you attack my U.N. ambassador?’ And then he gives the strangest defense by saying she didn’t have anything to do with the Benghazi [attack]. Then why the hell are you sending her out there? Why didn’t you send out the Secretary of State, or the CIA Director, or [Secretary of Defense] Panetta or somebody, who did know? 

The question is rhetorical.  We know that the White House, the State Department, and the CIA Director were informed that this was a terror attack almost immediately.  The White House then gave Rice her talking points for the American public five days later which denied terrorism was a factor by shifting blame to a video.

Rice had one job and one job only – to lie to you, to lie to me, and to lie to the families of those that were killed that night.  All because an election was right around the corner.

This is disgraceful.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Bill Clinton: Who Wants a President Who ‘Knowingly, Repeatedly Tells You Something He Knows Isn’t True?’

November 6, 2012 at 3:18 pm (2012 Election, Ambassador Stevens, Barack Obama, Benghazi, Bill Clinton, Jay Carney, Libya, Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Susan Rice)

“You are laughing, but who wants a president who will knowingly, repeatedly tell you something he knows is not true? When I was a kid, if I got my hand caught in the cookie jar, where it wasn’t supposed to be, I turned red in my face, and I took my hand out of the cookie jar.”

–  Bill Clinton, Philadelphia, November 5th
We here at the Mental Recession, couldn’t agree more.  So we urge Mr. Clinton to please tell the Obama administration to get their damn hands out of the cookie jar when it comes to Benghazi.
A short video reminder from the Heritage Foundation:

Permalink Leave a Comment

Bombshell: Did the White House Cover Up Ambassador’s Murder Because They Were Warned of Attacks Months in Advance?

October 2, 2012 at 8:17 pm (Ambassador, Ambassador Stevens, Benghazi, Christopher Stevens, Hillary Clinton, Libya, Susan Rice, Terrorism)

We know the Obama administration has been actively engaged in a cover-up as to why the U.S. consulate in Benghazi came under attack on September 11th, killing Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other diplomats.  How else to explain the weeks-long campaign to convince people that the attacks were not terrorism.

Now we’re finding out more details as to why they may have engaged in such a wide-ranging cover-up.

Via the Telegraph (emphasis mine):

Now that Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, has confirmed there was an explicit link between al-Qaeda and the attack, questions are being asked about the role Dr Rice played in trying to play down the significance of the attack. The Republicans have already called for her to resign from her post for misleading the American people.

But the real smoking gun is whether the Obama administration was warned in advance that al-Qaeda was planning an attack. A number of Israeli newspapers have suggested that Washington was warned as early as September 4 – a week earlier – that the environment in Benghazi was becoming increasingly hostile and anti-American, while in London the Foreign Office took the decision to withdraw all its consular staff from Benghazi two months before the murders. This decision was based on an intelligence assessment made by MI6 that al-Qaeda was openly operating in the area following a failed assassination attempt on Sir Dominic Asquith, Britain’s ambassador to Libya, in June.

It is well known that British intelligence works closely with its counterpart in America, and if MI6 knew al-Qaeda was operating in the Benghazi region, then it is highly likely that the CIA did too.

Suddenly the Administration’s “it’s nothing to do with us, guv,” defence is starting to look rather thin, with potentially disastrous consequences for Mr Obama’s re-election prospects.

If indeed, Washington was warned about an “increasingly hostile and anti-American” environment in Benghazi on September 4th, it makes this State Department memo (since scrubbed from their website) on September 6th even more curious:

Gateway Pundit explains how the administration tried hiding this memo after the fact:

Here’s what they did – They scrubbed a damning State Department memo from the internet–

On Wednesday September 12, 2012 blogger Speak With Authority discovered that five days before 9-11, the US State Department sent out a memo announcing no credible security threats against the United States on the anniversary of 9-11.

But now it’s gone.The State Department scrubbed the letter from its OSAC website.

At the time that this was revealed, their had been reports that the U.S. knew of potential threats a single day ahead of the actual attacks on September 11th.  But this latest report from the Telegraph demonstrates that the White House knew al-Qaeda was operating in the area in June, had specific reports of increasing hostility on the 4th, and then reported that there were no credible threats on the 6th.

That is criminal.

To have lowered security expectations despite their knowledge of threats is criminal.

This is a cover up of the highest order.  The Obama administration knew that attacks were possible and left U.S. consulate buildings unprotected.  The administration is directly responsible for the magnitude in which those attacks became successful.

And now, they are aware that there is evidence something could have been done to prevent the deaths of these four Americans.  There was blood on their hands, and instead of admitting mistakes they’ve been trying to scrub the crime scene clean ever since.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Bombshell: Administration Knew Attacks That Killed Ambassador Stevens Were the Work of Terrorists Within 24 Hours

September 26, 2012 at 12:00 pm (Al Qaeda, Ambassador, Benghazi, Christopher Stevens, Libya, Obama Administration, Radical Islam, Susan Rice, Terrorist, White House)

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.

The Daily Beast (via Hot Air) has dropped the curtain on this charade (emphasis mine):

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.

Please go read the rest folks… 

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.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Libyan President: U.S. Assertions that Attacks Were Spontaneous Reaction to a Film Are ‘Unfounded and Preposterous’

September 17, 2012 at 10:00 am (Cairo, Chris Wallace, Christopher Stevens, Jay Carney, Libya, Mark Steyn, Muslims, Pre-Planned, President Obama, Radical Islam, Susan Rice, Terrorism)

Honestly, is there anyone in America who believes the attacks in Libya, Cairo, and throughout the Arab world have anything to do with this anti-Mohammad film?

Yet the Obama administration is still trying to pass it off as fact.

First Press Secretary Jay Carney, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, lies about it, and then Ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, swears to it.

From Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace:

WALLACE: This week, there have been anti-American protests in two dozen countries across the Islamic world. The white house says it has nothing to do with the president’s policies. Let’s watch.”

JAY CARNEY:  This is not a case of protests directed at the United States writ large or at U.S. policy. This is in response to a video that is offensive.”

WALLACE: “You don’t really believe that?”

AMBASSADOR RICE:  “Chris, absolutely I believe that, because in fact, it is the case. We have had the evolution of the Arab Spring over the last many months but what sparked the recent violence was the airing on the internet of a very hateful very offensive, very hateful video that has offended many people around the world. Now, our strong view is that there is no excuse for violence. It is reprehensible and never justified but in fact there have been those in various parts of the world who have reacted with violence. Their governments have increasingly and effectively responded and protected our facilities and condemned the violence and this outrageous response to what is an offensive video. There is no question what we have seen in the past with satanic verses and the cartoon of the prophet Muhammad there have been such things that have sparked outrage and anger and this has been the proximate cause of what we’ve seen.”

I’d like to share this image (via Mike Adams) which indicates why this is a preposterous assertion.

And now it seems, Libya’s President also agrees that this is an ‘unfounded and preposterous’ notion.
Via the Daily Caller:

President Barack Obama jets off to campaign events Monday in the critical swing state of Ohio, even as Libyan officials and locals have shredded his defensive claim that a spontaneous protest against a Californian’s anti-Islam video caused the Sept. 11 killing of four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador.

“The idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous,” Libyan President Mohammed el-Megarif told the liberal National Public Radio network.

Instead, the killing was a military-style attack, he said.

The attacks were pre-meditated, designed to be carried out on the anniversary of 9/11.  You simply can’t scale embassy walls or American territory without somebody on the inside letting you in.  That part of the plan seems to be supported by one of the diplomats who was killed having stated that the so-called ‘Libyan police’ were caught taking suspicious pictures the night before.

The American people have the evidence in front of them, and the Obama administration is trying to tell them ‘no, no, what you’re seeing isn’t actually real’.

Mark Steyn is right – “Every American should be ashamed of their President”.

Permalink Leave a Comment