Tag Archives: Benghazi cover-up

Um, OK. Obama General says Army was not ordered to “stand down” in Benghazi, they were ordered to “remain in Tripoli” . . .

From the Center:

This dishonest AP story suggests that Gen. Dempsey disputes Deputy Ambassador Gregory Hicks about a “stand down” order during the Benghazi terrorist attack. But according to AP the Deputy Ambassador didn’t say “stand down,” he said the soldiers were told not to board the plane. That is exactly what Gen. Dempsey said. Beyond that, the AP scoop is that our special forces were not told to “stand down” they were ordered “to remain in Tripoli?”

Top military leader disputes diplomat on Benghazi

WASHINGTON (AP) — The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Wednesday that four members of Army special forces in Tripoli were never told to stand down after last year’s deadly assault on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, disputing a former top diplomat’s claim that the unit might have helped Americans under siege.

Army Gen. Martin Dempsey said timing and the need for the unit to help with casualties from Benghazi resulted in orders for the special forces to remain in Tripoli . . .

Meanwhile, a second team was preparing to leave on a Libyan C-130 cargo plane from Tripoli to Benghazi when Hicks said he learned from the Libyan prime minister that Stevens was dead. The Libyan military agreed to transport additional personnel as reinforcements to Benghazi on its cargo plane, but Hicks complained the special forces were told not to make the trip.

“They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it,” Hicks said. Pressed on why, he said, “I guess they just didn’t have the right authority from the right level.”

Obama grasps for a handle on scandal . . .

From the Center for the Center:

The Obama strategy for avoiding the political and legal consequences of the three primary scandals facing him is becoming clear. The Center sees the Obama strategy as follows:

1. AP/Fox News scandal: Obama’s “preferred” scandal. Obama is betting that the public will ultimately hold little sympathy for the mainstream media in the context of Obama protecting “national security” interests. Holder will soon take one for the team and resign.

2. Benghazi: This is Obama’s second favorite scandal because it is the most easy to politicize by blaming Republicans for “prolonging” a tragedy when “there is no there, there,” according to Obama. Besides, ultimately, Hillary is responsible and will eventually find herself under the bus.

3. IRS suppression of the Tea Party during the Presidential election: Obama’s most difficult challenge. The emerging strategy is to vigorously shove as many IRS employees, and soon White House staffers, under the bus as is necessary to insulate Obama. The campaign to portray the IRS as somehow confused by the Supreme Court’s Citizen’s United v FCC opinion, and to further vilify the Tea Party, is beginning in earnest.

How do you dispel belief in a cover-up once the public believes there was cover-up? Difficult, we think . . .

The newest Washington Post/ABC poll:
“Last year’s deadly attack on a diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, is shaping up as a real political problem for President Obama, with concern extending well beyond the conservative base. More than half of Americans say his administration is trying to cover up the facts of the attack.” Asked if the White House is engaged in a cover-up, 56 percent of Republicans and 60 percent of independents say yes.

From the latest Fox News poll:
60 percent (same for independents) think there was a cover-up.

Obama has now created more “pinocchios” than jobs . . .

Washington Post Fact-checker gives Obama four pinocchios for his latest fabrication regarding Benghazi:

“During the campaign, the president could get away with claiming he said “act of terror,” since he did use those words — though not in the way he often claimed. It seemed like a bit of after-the-fact spin, but those were his actual words — to the surprise of Mitt Romney in the debate.   But the president’s claim that he said “act of terrorism” is taking revisionist history too far, given that he repeatedly refused to commit to that phrase when asked directly by reporters in the weeks after the attack. He appears to have gone out of his way to avoid saying it was a terrorist attack, so he has little standing to make that claim now. Indeed, the initial unedited talking points did not call it an act of terrorism . . .”

Obama’s moveon.org chorus: Kerry sure he can learn nothing new about Benghazi . . .

Bloomberg News:

“Secretary of State John Kerry said recent debate about last Sept. 11’s attack on a U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, hasn’t produced new information and shouldn’t be used for political purposes.
“I hate to see it turned into a pure, prolonged political process that really doesn’t tell us anything new about the facts,” Kerry said in an online chat on a Google Inc. website.”