Get PJ Media on your Apple

Roger’s Rules

Benghazi as Lazarus, Back from the Dead

May 19th, 2013 - 1:07 pm

Last fall, I thought the premeditated terrorist attack on our consular facility in Benghazi — an attack, let us remember, that left Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead — would cost Barack Obama the election. I was wrong about that, as indeed I was wrong about the basic dynamics of the election more generally. I looked at Obama’s dismal record, his incontinent spending, the failure of his economic policies to spark growth or jump-start the jobs market, his “you-didn’t-build-that” attack on individual effort, and I thought “He’s toast.”  The September 11 attack on Benghazi by (as we now know) an al-Qaeda affiliate was, I thought, another, perhaps the biggest, nail in the coffin of his hubris.

As all the world knows, it didn’t turn out that way, partly because of Obama’s superior ground game, partly because of Romney’s many missteps.  But one of the biggest reasons, I believe, was the administration’s skillful though deeply duplicitous stage-management of the Benghazi crisis. They somehow managed to spin it out of all recognition. Instead of appearing as what it was — a deadly terrorist attack by an al-Qaeda affiliate — the Obama administration managed to make us (well, some of us) believe that it was primarily about our sins, not terrorist perfidy. The real cause of the event, we were told, was a sophomoric anti-Islamic internet video, not the RPG-wielding thugs who overran our consulate in Libya and murdered Chris Stevens and three of his colleagues.  Islamophobia, not Islam, was supposedly the culprit.

I never believed this and I was powerfully dismayed to discover just how successful the Obama Narrative was. From the moment Susan Rice hit the airwaves on September 16, the story, the real story, began to evaporate.  Plenty of fresh details emerged — above all the detail that the Obama administration did absolutely nothing to help Stevens and his colleagues despite their desperate pleas for help over the course of hours. But outside the conservative echo chamber, they had no resonance.  The presidential election loomed.  Obama had offed Osama bin Laden. Al-Qaeda was supposed to be yesterday’s news. The central fact about Northern Africa was supposed to be the “Arab Spring,” which in turn was supposed to corroborate Obama’s foreign policy genius and justify his Islamophilia. No one — certainly not the mainstream media — was interested in stories that gainsaid that rose-colored picture. Benghazi had died.

Until, that is, the testimony before Congress by Gregory Hicks, the State Department’s number two official in Libya at the time of the attack, earlier this month. Hicks directly contradicted the official Obama narrative. The attack — which took place, remember, on the anniversary of 9/11 — had nothing to do with that hitherto obscure internet video.  It had everything to do with al-Qaeda-sponsored terrorism. Suddenly Benghazi, like Lazarus, sprang back to life.

There is still a huge amount we do not know about the event. But more and more pieces of the puzzle are being unearthed, dusted off, and fit into the mosaic.  And the more we know, the worse it looks for Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. “What difference does it make,” an angry, or at least angry acting, Clinton asked last fall when questioned about the event.

Turns out it — that is, she and her boss — might have made a big difference. But instead of doing something that could have challenged the narrative of Obama’s foreign-policy prowess, they fabricated the internet video wheeze and hid behind the smokescreen of putative “Islamophobia.”

The more we know, the more rancid, not to say criminal, the administration’s behavior appears. The more we know —and we’re learning more almost daily — the worse it looks. One of the best reflections I’ve read on the event is PJ Media columnist Andy McCarthy’s essay “The 10 P.M. Phone Call,” which appeared at NRO yesterday. A former federal prosecutor, McCarthy has an instinct for the jugular, a sixth sense of what the capital issues are.  “Benghazi,” he points out, “ is not a scandal because of Ambassador Susan Rice, State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland, and ‘talking points.’ The scandal is about Rice and Nuland’s principals, and about what the talking points were intended to accomplish. Benghazi is about derelictions of duty by President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton before and during the massacre of our ambassador and three other American officials, as well as Obama and Clinton’s fraud on the public afterward.” [My emphasis.]

McCarthy asks a question that should be posed again and again until we have a satisfactory answer. What did then-Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama talk about when they spoke at 10:00p.m. the night of September 11, 2012?  “There is good reason to believe,” McCarthy points out, “that while Americans were still fighting for their lives in Benghazi, while no military efforts were being made to rescue them, and while those desperately trying to rescue them were being told to stand down, the president was busy shaping the ‘blame the video’ narrative to which his administration clung in the aftermath.”

McCarthy paints a very disturbing picture:

We have heard almost nothing about what Obama was doing that night. Back in February, though, CNS News did manage to pry one grudging disclosure out of White House mendacity mogul Jay Carney: “At about 10 p.m., the president called Secretary Clinton to get an update on the situation.”

Obviously, it is not a detail Carney was anxious to share. Indeed, it contradicted an earlier White House account that claimed the president had not spoken with Clinton or other top administration officials that night.

The earlier story better fit Obama’s modus operandi, which is to disappear in times of crisis. His brief legislative career was about voting “present” because he prefers to be absent when accountability knocks. . . .  He is not a commander-in-chief for the battle but the armchair general of the postmortem.

As McCarthy points out, “Fraud flows from the top down, not the mid-level up.”  In the present case, we saw our secretary of State, our ambassador to the UN, and the president’s press secretary go to town with what McCarthy calls the blame-the-video “fairy tale.”  Where’d they get that idea? Jay Carney declined to answer when CNS News asked.  But I hope that more people like Andy McCarthy will keep hammering away.

Writing at NRO a few days, Conrad Black said that it didn’t look to him as if Obama’s behavior in the Benghazi affair rose to the level of an impeachable offense: “gross material abuse of office, or abuse of office with intent to subvert the Constitution and fundamentally alter the nature of government.” I wonder.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Who issued the "stand down" order? That question needs to be asked every single day until it is answered. The cover-up is apparent at this point. Now, we need to find out exactly what was covered up.
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
Greg Hicks knew from the outset that the video story was a complete fabrication. And yet he voted for Obama. There is no accounting for stupidity. This site is populated by geniuses who didn't think Romney/Ryan were conservative enough to justify their unqualified support in a campaign against a socialist thug.

Please stop slamming the Mohammed video. I thought it was a light-hearted glimpse into the life of a monster. Given the execrable treatment of Coptic Christians by Muslims the maker of the video should be applauded for his courage in fighting back.
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
Exactly, it is already well established that Obama lied to the American people with regards to a video and protest. And nobody seems to care.

I just expect that from Obama and his administration as do apparently the vast majority of people.

What really gets my goat is that he did so in front of the United Nations and then made this statement. "The future does not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam." The gall of that despicable excuse for a US President, to turn an Islamic terrorist attack which killed a US Ambassador thanks to the incompetence or morally despicable actions of same President into that talking point.

48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (42)
All Comments   (42)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
There is no connection between the rising of Lazarus from the dead and Benghasi. Benghasi was never "dead"; it was just simmering on the back burner for a short while. Lazarus was raised from the dead in order to show two things, 1) the power and authority of the Lord over all His creation, and 2) His righteousness and Justice. There is no such power nor authority of men over men. The "rulers" in this case are but men/women, fallible and wont to sin. It is the nature of man to revel in the pride of life and in trying to control everything possible. It may work for a short time yet even then it is an elusive endeavor and it always ends badly. So will the Benghasi actions of Obama and Clinton, et al. Whatever their motivations, their actions will be their downfall.
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
When you see "Benghazi", don't think Lazarus, think "Uriah". a relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood and running (even more) guns is "Bathsheeba"..
Not Lazarus, Uriah!!
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
Also don't forget the catastrophe of September 11, 1683 when the Jihad against Vienna and Europe was ruined by Polish cavalry, making the date a must for scheduling revenge strikes.

Also remember the certain Jihad pattern of attacks, spontaneous attacks only against fellow citizens, with attacks on foreigners always requiring organization and planning.
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
until we have the answer to who gave the stand down order to leave US CITIZENS to be murdered, while troops were waiting to go, and until we know where the president was that night and what he is doing, we will never have a resolved to this.

Since obozo promised transparency, and he can solve these problems, let him start doing some splaining.
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
I really don't want to see another impeachment attempt, a la Slick Willie. The Republican Party has enough problems.

Unless, and until, that is, The House AND Senate are firmly in Republican control.

You see, there is a huge difference between the politics of Watergate and today. During Watergate, there were enough Republicans with a conscience to impeach Nixon. On the left today political power and expediency are all that matter. The Chicago Way and Alinsky Bible leave no room for integrity.
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
John Boehner is a "Republican", who knew about all these turds behind the church house door when the first people outside the loop heard them, (read House Intelligence Committee, et al).
I'm under NO ILLUSION that being "Republican" means being willing to "do the right thing"..
Obama is Obama, like Clinton is Clinton, and Ducks quack..
Nothing being done about Obama is the result of Boehner as Speaker..
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
There were U S forces ready, willing and able to get to Benghazi, and were told to
"stand down." When do those who were given that directive come forward? There is still much to learn about that terrible night, and many await the truth. If this is another crime to be buried, there is little hope for the USA.
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
As H.L. Menken once said: "Never underestimate the stupidity of the American people." O's administration proves this maxim. Of course the messiah knew everything! He ordered the stand down, IRS harrassment, the AP stuff & Fast & Furious. If you believe otherwise, see Menken's quote...
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
There was, and is, an airbase in southern Italy well under a couple of hours away. No help whatsoever from the outside ever came during that 8-10 hours (while Barack "Depraved Indifference" Obama was goofing off and sleeping). Not even a plane flying by with a firecracker - zip, zilch, nada.

We know with certitude that Obama and many in his administration lied through their teeth for weeks saying it was the video. Who wants a pathological liar, surrounded by pathological liars, as a President?

Any American leader who would betray the First Amendment and blame a video, even if it had been the video, which it was not, would betray anyone and anything.

48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
I'm sure our 'Narcissist in Chief' is having puzzling thought processes these days. Never before in this Man-Child's life has he been seriously questioned about his actions - or made to face up to them. This must be a very difficult time for him - GOOD! I want him to sweat - hard!

It would interesting to be a fly on the wall of the Oval Office as Barry and his 'campaign' staff huddle together trying to figure out how to get his mojo back. For the first time in his adult life he's being questioned by two groups he never thought to prepare to deal with: the MSM - the quasi press - the very ones largely responsible for his double election wins with help from ACORN et al - and by the very people who have so vociferously defended him for lo all these years.

Suddenly Barry is the target and not the 'gun'. Barry has never lost an election and probably (in his mind) never lost a disagreement or argument. Why would he? He is the 'best and brightest' isn't he? After all - 'they' all told him he was. But Barry has never faced a situation in all his life where he cannot simply vote PRESENT and dodge the tough questions that his 'friends' are asking persistently.

How long can Jay Carney hold onto his sanity? And why would I care?

Suddenly ZERO is not the 'Crown Prince Of All The World' - The Second Coming and the Thirteen Eman all rolled into one. Oh how the mighty have fallen! Remember his 'Peace Prize'? That was before he began quietly offing Bin Ladin's ilk - then Bin Ladin himself. The guy is an enigma but he isn't peaceful. And there lie the rub. He'll do whatever he thinks he can get away with in holding onto power. I doubt the full extent of his problems have saturated his thick skull. He is Barry after all!

Instead of golfing with golf pro's and celebs - taking all those half month vacations - and all those hoe-down parties in the WH he should have been schmoozing with the democrats who are now taking their shots at Barry - getting 'on the record' that "I opposed his power plays at every turn" sound-bites so they can be rid of the tarnish that is sure to hurt them too. Unlike Barry most people that befriend you are hesitant to smear you in public - or vote for an article of impeachment or three. Most politicians are like that - Barry is a very different animal - and one that when backed into a corner (losing his grip on power and the presidency) may well be capable of some very surprising actions. KYPD!

You can only push such a large pile of sh*t uphill for so long before it does what it does best. Barry's been pushing that sack uphill for a long time and its full! I suspect when the floodgates open - and they will - scandals like Tony Resco and the 'FOR SALE' senate seat Barry vacated (among others) will have a 'Lazarus moment' too. People who were humiliated into silence by Barry may well find their voices.

It couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

NO! - REALLY! It literally could not have!
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
Maybe the cover-up is to keep people from learning what Libya was really like before the illegal NATO action! Like for example the following FACTS...
Before we 'freed' Libya.....
Electricity in Libya was free
There was no interest on loans, banks in Libya were state-owned and loans were given to all its citizens at zero percent interest by law
Having a home was considered a human right in Libya
All newlyweds in Libya received $60,000 dinar (U.S.$50,000) from the government to buy their first apartment
Education and medical treatments were free in Libya (remember: before Gaddafi only 25% of Libyans were literate; nowadays this is 83%)
When Libyans wanted to take up farming, they would receive farm land, a farm house, equipment, seeds and livestock to kick start their farms all for free
When Libyans could not find the education or medical facilities they needed, the government funded them to go abroad; above that they received U.S.$2,300/month for accommodation and car allowance
When Libyans bought a car, the government subsidized 50% of the price
The price of petrol in Libya was $0.14 per liter
Libya had no external debt
When a Libyan was unable to get employment after graduation, the government would pay the average salary of the profession, as if he or she was employed, until employment was found
A portion of every Libyan oil sale was credited directly to the bank accounts of all Libyan citizens
A mother who gave birth to a child received U.S.$5,000
Food was subsidized: 40 loaves of bread in Libya cost $0.15
25% of Libyans have a university degree
Gaddafi carried out the world's largest irrigation project, known as the Great Manmade River project, to make water readily available throughout the desert country
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
Sounds like a real socialist's paradise. What made you return to the USA?
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
I really wish these Western Leftists would put their money where their mouth is and move to Quaddafi's Libya or Castro's Cuba or Kim's North Korea, socialist paradises.

But alas...they never do. And instead insist on recreating those paradises here. You would do a better job of convincing people if you moved to Libya and showed us how wonderful it was.
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 Next View All