Tim Stanley in the Telegraph reports that Hilary Clinton lied about the causes of the attack on the American embassy in Benghazi….
Clinton won her encounter at the Benghazi hearings, but one important deception was exposed. The administration tried to mislead the American people about the attackers’ motives
On September 11 2012, Islamists overran a compound in Benghazi, Libya and killed ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. Conservatives believe the administration mishandled it. Maybe, maybe not. But in one very crucial way, we have solid proof that they lied.
This is what has been forgotten: administration officials tried to claim that the attack was a spontaneous, angry reaction to a revolting anti-Islamic video made by a US resident. The implication was that the assault was unforeseeable and that bigotry was guilty of stirring it up.
Again and again and again, the administration insisted this was an attack in response to a video. And yet we now know that on September 12, Hillary Clinton rang the then Egyptian prime minister, Hisham Kandil, to tell him: “The attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack — not a protest.”
To anyone who was alive, conscious and watching the TV in those days following the murder of Chris Stevens it was quite obvious where the administration stood. It tried to sell the story that the attack was motivated by religious anger. And we finally have proof that they were selling us a lie.
The BBC for some reason, perhaps they are covering up for Obama’s failure, seem to have missed that important point.
Despite the committee sitting in four consecutive hours-long sessions on Thursday, the hearing yielded little new information.
Well, nothing except the administration lied about one of the most important facts in this event….its cause, and the fact that it was not a ‘spontaneous and unforeseeable’ event but one that might have been foreseen and prevented by an adminsitration that was on the ball.
Oh wait…the BBC does dare to venture down this tricky path which might lead to the sainted Obama being shown up as incompetent…
Why were we originally told US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans died because of a YouTube video that agitated a large crowd of people?
It’s a good question, and one that was asked by numerous congressional investigations. There were demonstrations against the video in the region at the time, one of which targeted the US embassy in Cairo, and that’s what the administration said also happened in Benghazi.
But many Republicans believed the White House was trying to deflect attention from what they saw as its policy failures in the battle against terrorism. The House Intelligence Committee agreed that the talking points were flawed. But it said intelligence analysts, not political appointees, made the wrong call, and there was no deliberate attempt at a cover up.
Oh, OK….nothing to see here , move along kids….it’s just the Republicans being partisan….there was no deliberate cover up…..em…except Tim Stanley shows that there was….by the politicians….and not sure how the BBC can report the politicians made no failure as it admits that Clinton admits…
…..that security requests made by the Benghazi consulate were not met.
…emails show Clinton’s staff had other political priorities than responding to the ambassador’s pleas.[For more security]
Curious that the BBC makes absolutely no mention of the questioning of Clinton about her admission to her family and to the Egyptian president that the attack had nothing to do with an internet video but was in fact a terrorist attack.
Of course a cynic might say that the BBC’s own preferred narrative is that an ‘anti-Islamic video’ caused so much anger and distress in the Muslim world that this is the natural result, blowback, and by default this also covers Obama’s ass for the failure of his administration to protect the embassy.
A cynic might say, or indeed anyone who has the slightest experience of how the BBC thinks and operates.