Get PJ Media on your Apple

Roger L. Simon

Benghazi: The Video Vanishes

May 12th, 2013 - 8:39 pm

The dam really is breaking on Benghazi with even reliable Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein offering criticism of the administration on Meet the Press Sunday.

Will she go under the bus too in the next Jay Carney press briefing, as have the State Department and the CIA? Hard to say, but here’s what the California senator said:

“I think this is a cautious administration,” Feinstein told host David Gregory. ”But this is one instance where, you know, it was what it was. And you saw it. The minute you knew what happened, you knew it was a terrorist attack. And you knew these groups had camps all around the area.”

She also added: “When you see a group going up with RPGS and weapons to break into one of our facilities, you can assume it’s a terrorist attack.”

Cautious administration? Well, maybe — or perhaps more accurately propagandistic and self-preservational.

The latter theory gets traction from the reporting on the editing of the talking points by Jonathan Karl and Stephen Hayes. The officials involved don’t seem concerned with truth, only with saving organizational (State Dept., CIA) or political (Obama, Clinton) face.

Several of these officials doing this editing are already trying to save their reputations, promoting the idea that they are not responsible for the malfeasances of their superiors. That’s true to some extent — their superiors are likely more culpable — but I am not buying their excuse. Call me old-fashioned, but I think the responsibility of an American diplomat and/or official is finally to the American people first. Gregory Hicks could put it on the line for the public. Why couldn’t they?

Even now these officials have not, to my knowledge, volunteered to step forward to testify. Perhaps one of them would explain just why the State Department failed to give an ambassador (or anyone, for that matter) decent security on September 11, in Libya of all places, a country even a disinterested layman would know was roughly as safe as the Somme during World War I.

Or perhaps they could tell who it was that had been refusing security — despite repeated terror attacks — for their Libyan staff for several months and why he or she was refusing it. Where did the buck stop?

And then there’s the matter of why backup was refused for our men on the ground in Benghazi that night and morning. The “not enough time” excuse doesn’t go very far when you consider that no one could possibly know when the terror attacks would end.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
They blamed it on the movie, because part of Obama's re-election message was he had ended terrorism as we know it with the killing of bin Laden. Benghazi and Stevens' murder blew that message up.

Blaming the movie was an attempt to claim 'extraordinary circumstances' were in play, and they were caused by cultural insensitivity coming from the United States, so it was kind of our fault, anyway. It was a way to get them past the 2012 election.

The cover-up now, especially on the Team Clinton side, is a way to get them past the 2016 election.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The YouTube video cover has always seemed like a longshot, and red herring. How is this administration so aware of a video that no one else has seen? The movie had been out there a while and then all of a sudden it sets off demonstrations in the Middle East? Obama and Clinton had this story ready to go, why? For this SNAFU or a different one?

While Obama and Clinton wrung their hands over the possible political fallout, four brave Americans died. Unfit to lead, neither has the temperament or the moral character to serve.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"why is this being ignored?"

To protect Obama and his agenda. So simple, right?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (67)
All Comments   (67)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Please searcg [ 2008 passport scandal and innocence of muslims ]

...and then just scan thru the first few pages. Just note the source and glance at the blurbs. I use Bing, but just use your fave.

There's something that feels ultra sinister going on, and hardly anyone at PJM is watching it. The implications of this thing are fairly enormous, i think, but maybe i'm just gaslit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
In DC, the operative question on any incident is "how can we spin this".

While, on Backgammon's point below, incest is deep and wide.

This is a couple years old, but gives an idea.

Media:

http://www.geke.us/MediaVenn.html

Main page:

http://www.geke.us/VennDiagrams.html
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
No matter what happens from [this] last week, forward , never let anyone in your earshot get away with exclaiming anything remotely positive about
Barack H. Obama-Soetoro.
Those days are over, for now and forever.
The days of 'polite conservatism' are about to become a distant memory.
Be polite, but firm, and revel in the knowledge that you knew this time would come eventually. No one filled with this much Hubris could last this long.
It was just not in the cards.........
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
A cross border rescue mission could have blown up in his face and cost him the election. Only the President can give the word to have the military go into action in another country.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
And only the President can give the order to 'Stand Down'. Obama let Americans die to make sure he would get re-elected.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
As others have noted, the two individuals who did the most to promote and publicize the "video" were none other than Obama and Hillary. Obama through his obscene apologies in his address to the United Nations. And Hillary through that American taxpayer funded ad to Pakistan and her abject apology. Why were they so interested in stirring the pot? We're they hoping for more American embassies to be over run? Have more Americans killed?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
THE PRESIDENT MAY NOT BE A MUSLIM ...
but he certainly lies like an Islamist.
You say: Ta key yah. I say: Ta kai ya
Ta key yah, Ta kai yah
The guy is a liar.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Q: SINCE THE WHITE HOUSE WAS ARMING AL QAEDA IN BENGHAZI TO FIGHT IN SYRIA, WHY DID AL QAEDA ATTACK US ?
A: Read the fable "The Scorpion and the Frog".
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT YOUR OWN ASS'
This defines Obama's foreign and domestic policy. If this means lying like an Islamist about Benghazi, okay. If this means invading Syria to divert attention from a bad US economy, so be it.
Obama will do whatever Obama has to do to stay in power
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
ALTHOUGH CONGRESS HAS SEEN 4 1/2 YEARS OF THIS ADMINISTRATION, IT STILL DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THE KIND OF SCUM IT'S DEALING WITH: 1) It was clear from the beginning that the crummy Mohammed video wasn't the cause of the Benghazi massacre. It was classic misdirection; 2) This use of this video was to divert attention from the fact that people who could've helped Americans in Benghazi were told to 'stand down'; 3) The 'stand down' order was given because the White House didn't want to draw attention to what was happening in Benghazi -- especially during an election 4) What was happening was treasonous; 5) It was treasonous because the WH, through cut outs (Saudi Arabia, Qatar), was arming al Qaeda to fight in Syria; 6) Al Qaeda is an enemy of the US; 7) A definition of treason is: "The betrayal of one's own country by ... consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies." Any wonder why no one, yet, has been brought to 'justice'?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I'm wondering why no one has talked to Nakoula. Is it sheer terror of Islamic reprisals that is keeping even high profile lawyers and right-leaning journalists away? Or is he locked in a tower somewhere, surrounded by a crocodile-infested moat?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 4 5 Next View All