State Dept Busted In Another Lie

[red states rule]

Just in time for the Congressional hearings that start today, and the November election, the Obama State Dept has been caught in another lie

Obama has been running aorund boasting how HE has reduced the threat of terrorism, he did not want the truth about his lack of action in the terror attacks on our Embassy

If you’ve been following the news about Benghazi, you’ll have two questions after watching this clip. One: Didn’t we already know this? Answer: Yes, “we” did, but not because our government was eager for us to find out. McClatchy published an interview with a Libyan guard wounded in the attack just two days after it happened in which he claimed that there was never any protest. Four days later, Fox News was hearing the same thing from an intelligence source on the ground. Four days after that, Eli Lake of Newsweek reported that there was intelligence early on that the attack was planned and that an Al Qaeda affiliate was involved. Right around the same time, Jay Carney started segueing from the White House’s initial ludicrous “spontaneous protest over the Mohammed movie” narrative to a “yes, of course this was a terrorist attack” admission. Not until tonight, though, I believe, did Chris Stevens’s superiors at State think to politely inform the public — not to mention Carney — that, oh right, there was never a protest. Let the fingerpointing begin:

The State Department said Tuesday it never concluded that the consulate attack in Libya stemmed from protests over an American-made video ridiculing Islam, raising further questions about why the Obama administration used that explanation for more than a week after assailants killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.

The revelation came as new documents suggested internal disagreement over appropriate levels of security before the attack, which occurred on the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the U.S…
But asked about the administration’s initial – and since retracted – explanation linking the violence to protests over an anti-Muslim video circulating on the Internet, one official said, “That was not our conclusion.” He called it a question for “others” to answer, without specifying.

Which brings us to the second question: Why did it take a month for them to mention this? I have no answer, except to wonder whether they’d have ever admitted it if Issa hadn’t called House hearings this week. Tonight’s news is simply State’s way of pushing some anticipated heat off of itself and onto the White House before tomorrow’s grilling begins. It’s a comfort to know that nothing short of public humiliation by the opposition party could get them to share info about a terror attack that ended with an American ambassador being murdered.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/0...re-the-attack/

[Kathianne]

More of the 'enlightened foreign policies":

http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/10/fo...-the-building/

Former State Dept. Official: Prior to Libya Embassy attack, Taliban was ‘on the inside of the building’

6:17 PM 10/10/2012

Former Department of State Libyan Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom told a House committee that his request for additional security at the U.S. Embassy in Libya, made prior to the attack that claimed the lives of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, was denied.


He recalled telling Bureau of Diplomatic Security Regional Director Jim Bacigalupo that he felt the Taliban was “on the inside of the building.”


“Actually had that conversation when I came back on leave, and for training in February, and I was told by the regional director for Near Eastern affairs that there had only been one incident involving an American, where he was struck by celebratory fire. It was one of Colonel Wood’s employees,” Nordstrom told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Wednesday.


“The takeaway from that for me and my staff: It was abundantly clear we were not going to get resources until the aftermath of an incident. And the question that we would ask is, again, how thin does the ice have to get before someone falls through?”

...

[aboutime]

Since most of us are more than fully aware of Obama propensity to constantly lie about almost every topic.

The primary question EVERY AMERICAN...including those who shamelessly, and foolishly voted for him...should be asking is...

"WHY, Mister Obama? Other than to make your pre-election chances look better....DID YOU ALLOW THE KILLING OF 4 AMERICANS?"

Nothing else needs to be asked.

FOUR HUMAN BEINGS ARE DEAD, and if Obama is true to his word...in any way. THAT RESPONSIBILITY is ON OBAMA'S HEAD!

[red states rule]