Total Pageviews

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Obama Reads My Pet Goat

One of the liberal complaints about George Bush has long been he didn't run screaming from the room when informed that we had been attacked on 9 - 11. Personally I think he did a stellar job by not scaring the hell out of a bunch of kids. Flash forward a few years and our Embassy is attacked, our Ambassador and several others are killed and it all happens on ..... wait for it ..... 9 -11 and obama is trying to A - - convince us that it was spontaneous B - wasn't a pre planned terrorist attack ...C - it was because of a You Tube video. Well as the days have passed and more and more evidence has mounted that the administration was aware that there were security issues at that Embassy and that they had been warned several times trouble was coming and had even gone so far as to issue a travel advisory several weeks prior to the attack. One thing about Bush was that at least he was able to recognize a terrorist attack when it bit him on the ass. So far obama has failed to accept even that. I will give him this, at least he hasn't called it a case of work place violence or a man caused disaster ....yet

Obama official: Yes, Benghazi was a terrorist attack and there are “indications” Al Qaeda was involved; Update: Ringleader released from Gitmo in 2007?

So here’s where we’re at after a week of inane White House spin. Until yesterday, the official line was that this attack — which involved heavy weapons — just might have been a spontaneous protest over the Mohammed YouTube video that got way, way out of control. Certainly it wasn’t anything organized or foreseeable or else the Foreign Policy President would have been on it. Then, yesterday, Carney finally bowed to reality and acknowledged that bona fide terrorists might have exploited a protest to launch an attack. Still spontaneous, though. Nothing pre-planned.

We’re still on that talking point as of 6 p.m., but now there’s a lot more meat on the bone with respect to who those bona fide terrorists might be. I figure by late Thursday or early Friday, they’ll finally go the whole nine yards and admit that, yeah, the people responsible might have had a thought or two about doing something like this before they acted.

“I would say yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy,” Matt Olsen, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said Wednesday at a hearing of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, in response to questioning from Chairman Joe Lieberman (I-CT) about the attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans…
“We are looking at indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to al Qaeda or al Qaeda’s affiliates; in particular, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb,” he said.
The U.S. government just isn’t sure yet whether the terrorist attack was pre-planned or whether it was an example of terrorists taking advantage of protests against an anti-Islam film, Olsen said.
“It appears that individuals who were certainly well-armed seized on the opportunity presented as the events unfolded that evening and into the morning hours of September 12th. We do know that a number of militants in the area, as I mentioned, are well-armed and maintain those arms. What we don’t have at this point is specific intelligence that there was a significant advanced planning or coordination for this attack,” he said.

Question: Why are we still focused on the question of whether the attack was “pre-planned” or “spontaneous” if we have good reason to think Al Qaeda was involved? It’s not like U.S. intelligence didn’t know that there are expert jihadis in the area; on the contrary, Benghazi is one of the jihadi-est places on Earth and has been so for years. Whether a group of mujahedeen sketched out an assault on the consulate in advance or whether they got wind of the protest and raced down to the building with guns blazing, the point here is that (a) there are a lot of them in the area, (b) they have plenty of weapons, (c) both of those facts are well known to the CIA and State Department, and yet (d) the consulate was nonetheless left without any serious security. Try to wrap your mind around the fact that Obama and his State Department left the building so vulnerable that it’s actually possible that a spontaneous attack from Al Qaeda was able to breach the walls and take the life of the U.S. ambassador. The White House is trying to use this somehow as a point in its own defense. Why?

Here’s something else inane, as noted by RNC research director Joe Pounder. Remember when the State Department said it would no longer be fielding questions about the Benghazi attack? Guess who Carney is now deferring to with respect to questions directed at the White House:

Tapper followed up: “Who made the decision that there should not be any Marines at our diplomatic posts in Libya? More than half of our diplomatic posts have Marines. I understand they’re not there to protect people. They’re there to protect classified data but it doesn’t hurt to have them there. Who made the decision?”
Carney responded: “I think security at diplomatic facilities is overseen by and run by the State Department, so I’d refer you to them about how decisions are made and what the allocation of resources was in Benghazi and elsewhere. I think they’re the best people to answer that question.”
H/T Hot Air

No comments:

Post a Comment