Is the BBC covering up a cover up?


Tim Stanley in the Telegraph reports that Hilary Clinton lied about the causes of the attack on the American embassy in Benghazi….

Hillary Clinton’s big Benghazi lie

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.

The BBC remarkably tells us that…

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.

And that…

…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.








Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Is the BBC covering up a cover up?

  1. Demon says:

    The Clintons must be covered in fairy dust. It doesn’t matter how much sleaze, corruption or lying they are involved in they always seem to come up smelling of roses. They are disgusting people and the thought that the next president will be Hilllllary (sorry, I know she’s got too many ‘l’s in her name but I don’t know where to stop) probably is quite alarming. I’m not too keen on Trump but he is far preferable to her.


  2. John Anderson says:


    Please add to your note this link to the key section of evidence in the hearing – where Jim Jordan nails Clinton on her lies.

    She knew from the off that it was a terrorist attack – not a street mob caused by a video.

    But that evening she and Obama decided that the way to play it all was to focus on the video. And when the bodies came back, that is what she told the mourning relatives. And that outright lie is what Susan Rice repeated on 5 US Sunday news shows. Why was Susan Rice the spokesman ? Clinton herself should have been in all those 5 studios.

    The BBC says that “nothing new was revealed at the hearing”.

    No reference to this stark proof by Jim Jordan that Clinton was a liar. And no reference to the fact that emails finally released – after over 2 years – show that the dead Ambassador had emailed her State Department 600 times – 600 times – asking for security to be beefed up.


  3. Guest Who says:

    Maybe they could pay Nick Pollard a few mill to look int… oh, hang on…


  4. Guest Who says:

    Meanwhile looks like (c) A. Newsroom Tealady on ‘not news’ duty. Or maybe an Ian Katz ‘ran out of time’, or….


  5. John Anderson says:

    During the Congressional hearing this is where Clinton is nailed on her on what happened at Benghazi. To her family and to the President of Egypt she was immediately clear it was a terrorist attack. And not caused by the imfamous video. Indeed this is what people on the spot were telling Clinton and Obama. But to the grieving relatives, and to the US public, she tried to put the blame on the video. On the Sunday after the attack Susan Rice plugged this line on no less than 5 major US TV programmes.


  6. deegee says:

    Even Fox News, hardly Clinton boosters, admits that nothing came out of the 11 hour ordeal that we din’t already know. Clinton gained points for not cracking under what appeared to be partisan bullying.


  7. TrueToo says:

    Got to this story late, but since then I’ve been wading though the 11 hours of grilling on Fox – though unfortunately Fox only shows the grillee and not the grillors.

    Re John’s point, Jordan is the one that has impressed me the most so far, especially by exposing the lie that the video caused the barbarous attack and that Clinton lied about it to the American people after she’d told her family and the Egyptian and Libyan governments the truth.

    I have no doubt that Obama, always intent on portraying Muslims in the best possible light, told Clinton to lie and blame the producer of the video – a Coptic Christian.

    She lied once and then probably pleaded with Obama not to ask her to lie again – knowing that the truth would emerge and cast her in a bad light. So Susan Rice was asked to spread the lie.