Why Is Obama Disputing Israeli and Libyan Intelligence by Mychal Massie

Why is the Obama administration spending so much time and energy disputing the Israeli and Libyan intelligence reports that the Benghazi Embassy attack was not a spontaneous eruption of violence–rather that it was a carefully planned and choreographed attack?

When it comes to intelligence gathering in the Middle East, none is more sophisticated and credible than Israel. As I pointed out in my September 17, syndicated article “BHO: A Portrait Of Stupidity,” An Israeli Foreign Ministry official, speaking in reference to the growing signs of ‘radicalization’ in the Arab world, said: “We knew what was happening, but the Americans preferred to find excuses.”

Why would Obama have Susan Rice attempt to convince us that a group of Muslim hoodlums were hanging around outside the embassy, and after falafels and too much arak, decided to climb over the embassy walls and murder innocent Americans?

Why? What is Obama’s reasoning for making excuses juxtaposed to acting on credible intelligence information?

Libyan security officials are maintaining that they had warned Obama’s diplomats of violent unrest in Benghazi three days before the murders of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three members of his diplomatic team. Libyan President Mohammed el-Megarif maintains that his government had information that the attack had been planned by Islamic terrorists with ties to al-Qa’ida and that foreign insurgents had also participated in the attack.

Why would Obama have Susan Rice attempt to convince us that a group of Muslim hoodlums were hanging around outside the embassy, and after falafels and too much arak, decided to climb over the embassy walls and murder innocent Americans? And even more incredulous, Obama and Susan Rice want us to believe that after the hoodlums started the brouha there just happened to be a few crazies walking around carrying RPGs. I gotta’ tell you, that’s one hell of a hot time, in the old town, on a Saturday night.

I’m not making it up. That is exactly what Susan Rice and Obama spokesman Jay Carney are saying.

And if that doesn’t make your head spin, the Marines assigned to security there were not permitted to carry live ammunition. Which while the naysayers are quick to mindlessly claim that Obama’s Egyptian Ambassador said those claims weren’t true–they might want to consider that that was/is the same practice at Fort Hood and that is the policy on other bases and at other American embassies in the Middle East under Obama. But I digress. The question that remains is–why is Obama spending so much energy denying the attack was a pre-planned and carefully planned attack?


And specific to that question–why was Obama’s first response to apologize and make excuses for the heathens who had just violated our sovereignty and murdered our Ambassador and staff? Why was his first instinct not to condemn the perpetrators? That said, his response was eerily similar in approach as to his response to the Fort Hood massacre committed by a Muslim–i.e., he instructed Congress to essentially bite their tongues and not make a big deal out of the murders or the fact that a Muslim was the murderer.

The UK Independent reported that diplomatic sources said the threat of an attack was known to the Obama administration 48 hours before it took place. The Independent also reported that the alert was issued by the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security, but not made public.

And still in the face of unimpeachable evidence to the contrary, Obama had a State Department spokesman claim: “We are not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the US Mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent.” (SEE: Libya: We gave US three-day warning of Benghazi attack; Kim Sengupta; 9/18/12)

Why is Obama lying? And while you’re pondering that question, where is Hillary? She has been noticeably absent in this dog-and-pony show of “even though we know that you know we’re lying, if we lie and deny long enough, the lie will become truth.”

There are only so many plausible reasons for Obama to lie about what they knew and when they knew it.

The reason that comes immediately to mind is that Obama’s foreign policy has resulted in a catastrophic and comprehensive failure and loss of American lives. Tangential to that is that the election is only weeks away and to that end Obama will do and say anything to get reelected.

And while Romney may well be one of the most under-whelming candidates of all time, the last thing Obama wants is to face questions for which the only answer is that he has been a massive failure. As long as he denies what was known and when it was known he can dodge and tell more lies during the debates.

But one thing he will have a difficult time convincing reasonable minds about is why his FBI is investigating what amounts to an act of war. Why is he treating an act of war and aggression on American soil, by those we have been at war with for a decade, like a criminal investigation? Are he and Holder planning to try whatever perpetrators they catch in our civilian courts? How is he going to explain to the American people that they must provide the best legal defense teams money can buy to defend those who committed an act of war against us?

The Middle East, thanks to Obama’s flawed Neo-Leninist, anti-colonial ideology, is ten seconds away from full meltdown. And there is nothing he can do, (if he even wanted to), to change that. As one pundit recently said: “Obama has unleashed demons he cannot control.”

Of course, there is another reason to consider when asking why Obama is denying the attack was planned. His entire life, from what we know of it, has been one of denial and lies. He the most mendacious and dishonorable politician I have ever witnessed and that includes Bill Clinton. To admit that the attack was planned and he took no action would be to assume responsibility–and assuming responsibility for his failure is not in his DNA.

Ergo, the longer he denies and lies, the longer he will not have to confess responsibility for the powder keg he has created.

Of course, there is another reason to consider when asking why Obama is denying the attack was planned. According to Susan Rice’s page at Wikipedia: “On March 29, 2011, Rice said that the Obama administration had not ruled out arming the rebels fighting to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.” Maybe Obama is worried we’ll discover that it was U.S. guns they handed out earlier that were used to kill our citizens–i.e., a Fast-and-Furious redux.

Maybe he’s developing a path to dodge those accusations should they become a reality. One thing is certain, with the Obama administration anything is possible and as we’re finding out, it usually is.