Liar-In-Chief: Government Emails Prove Obama Told Of Militant Claim Within Two Hours Of Benghazi Attack

GAME, SET, MATCH

There’s a wise old adage that says: “Always tell the truth – it’s much more easy to memorize.” Obviously, Barack Hussein Obama and his Regime didn’t get the memo. Reuters is reporting – after obtaining copies of official government emails – that the Regime and the State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack. Game, set, match, O; thanks for playing.

The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group Ansar al-Sharia immediately claimed responsibility for the attacks.

The emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack  to Washington - even as it was still under way.

The first email, timed at 4:05 p.m. Washington time – 10:05 p.m. Benghazi time – was sent 20-30 minutes after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission began. It carried the subject line “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack” and the notation “SBU”, meaning “Sensitive But Unclassified.”

The text said the State Department’s regional security office had reported that the diplomatic mission in Benghazi was “under attack. Embassy in Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well.”

A second email, headed “Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi” and timed 4:54 p.m. Washington time, said the Embassy in Tripoli had reported that “the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi had stopped and the compound had been cleared.” It said a “response team” (of Libyans) was at the site attempting to locate missing personnel.

A third email, also marked SBU and sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time, carried the subject line: “Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack.”

The message reported: “Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli.”

Continue reading…

In an appearance on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, five weeks after the attack, O vigorously defended his handling of the tragedy and the subsequent fallout.

Someone is lying. As is always the best course when trying to determine who is lying – when two or more parties tell completely different stories – it’s wise to consider who has the most to gain – or lose – by lying. Let’s give that a shot:

Reuters, a left-leaning news organization that is frequently criticized by the right for everything from biased reporting to releasing offensive photos of conservatives (young boys staring up at Sarah Palin’s legs and the recent misleading image of a school girl appearing to stare at Mitt Romney’s butt, for example), broke the story. What does Reuters stand to gain by doing so? Credibility an a competitive edge on its competition. What does it have to lose? Its relationship with the Regime.

So, what does Barack Hussein Obama have to gain by misleading the public on the attack? By calling it “spontaneous” and the result of the now-infamous “anti-Islamic” video? This one’s easy: O desperately wanted to continue the whole foreign policy charade. He had said: “The war on terror is over.” He had told us “al Qaeda is in retreat.” He has continued his perpetual “I Killed Osama Bin Laden Victory Tour” for a year and a half. He wanted us to believe he was the foreign policy guru that he told us he would be during the 2008 campaign.

What did he have to lose by telling the truth? Everything. Especially after the inconsistencies began to pile up.

Barack Obama has consistently obfuscated and misled the public from the immediate aftermath of the attack. He claimed – falsely – in the second debate that he referred to the attack as “terrorist” in his Rose Garden comments the day after it occurred. (He did not.) Then, he went on The View, David Letterman and Univision – and refused to call it a terrorist attack – even when asked to do so. How can he have it both ways?

He trotted out his UN Ambassador – five days after the attack – to appear on five Sunday morning talk shows and staunchly claim that the attack was “spontaneous” and the result of a 15-minute YouTube video that no one had every seen.

O stood before the General Assembly of the United Nations and referenced the video six times, while referring to “terrorism” – in general – only once. And last week, he showed up on  The Daily Show and said this:

“Every piece of information that we got, as we got it, we laid it out for the American people.”

Um, no O, no you didn’t. Either Reuters, the State Department’s Operations Center – or you – are lying. You and your Regime’s repeated characterizations of the attack as “spontaneous” demonstrations in response to a YouTube video – for two full weeks thereafter -were knowingly misleading and incomplete.

You lied to us, O – and it’s finally caught up with you. The timing couldn’t be better.

About these ads

---

« Former New York Governor George Pataki Absolutely Destroys MSNBC Moonbat Lawrence O’Donnell After Last Night’s Debate

O: Hey, Has Anyone Seen My Gender Gap? I Think I’ve Lost It! »

Categories: Benghazi, Libya Attack, Obama Reelection Campaign, Obama Regime, Our Embarrassment for a President, Seriously, Telling it Like it is, The Real Barack Obama, The Utter Failure of Barack Obama

Tags: 2012 election, al-qaeda, Barack Obama, Benghazi, Reuters

Related Articles

• Bob Woodward, Relax; No One Is Going To Take Watergate From You
• Going Public: Obama Regime Target Tells It Like It Is
• Game On! Issa Warns Hillary
• A Rough Couple Of Weeks For O: Is It About To Get Worse?
• Judge Jeanines’s Epic Slapdown Of Hillary And Obama On Benghazi
• AP CEO: By The Way, You Do Know Secret Seizure Of Phone Records Was Unconstitutional, Right?