“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."

Thursday, October 18, 2012

“Why did the White House persist with the phony story of a protest against a video being the cause of Ambassador Stevens’ death, when they had to know there was no protest?"

The most plausible explanation is that the truth — we were being hit with the worst terror attack since 9/11 in a city we saved — would have exposed Obama’s boasting about his Libya triumph and al-Qaida being “on the run” and “on the path to defeat” as absurd propaganda.
Al-Qaida is now in Libya, Mali, Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Pakistan.

Candidate Obama also tipped his hand a while ago.  Not when he was running for President.  Not even when he was running for the U.S. Senate, but when he was gearing up more than a decade ago to enter electoral politics as a candidate for Illinois State Senate.  In an interview with the Chicago Reader at the end of 1995, Obama laid out his thoughts as to why a successful lawyer, professor, and community organizer might want to seek elected office.
"What if a politician were to see his job as that of an organizer," he wondered, "as part teacher and part advocate, one who does not sell voters short but who educates them about the real choices before them? As an elected public official, for instance, I could bring church and community leaders together easier than I could as a community organizer or lawyer. We would come together to form concrete economic development strategies, take advantage of existing laws and structures, and create bridges and bonds within all sectors of the community. We must form grass-root structures that would hold me and other elected officials more accountable for their actions.
- SUN NOV 16, 2008 AT 06:59 AM PST DAILY KOS

By: Patrick J. Buchanan HUMAN EVENTS
10/16/2012 10:21 AM

On Sept. 11, scores of men with automatic weapons and RPGs launched a night assault on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and set the building ablaze. Using mortars, they launched a collateral attack on a safe house, killing two more Americans, as other U.S. agents fled to the airport.
On Sept. 14, White House press secretary Jay Carney said the attack came out of a spontaneous protest caused by an anti-Muslim video on YouTube.
On Sept. 16, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice told the entire nation the attack had not been premeditated or preplanned but emanated from a spontaneous protest of the nasty video.
On Sept. 25, Obama at the United Nations mentioned the video six times.
But when they were pushing this tale, what did the White House actually know?
For we have now learned that the assault was observed in near real time by the State Department’s Charlene Lamb, who was in contact with the security section at the Benghazi compound.
The next day, Sept. 12, Fox News and Eli Lake of The Daily Beast reported that U.S. intelligence had concluded it was terrorism. Within 24 hours of the attack, U.S. intelligence had identified some of the terrorists as members of an al-Qaida affiliate.
Thus either administration higher-ups were ignorant for more than a week of what their own agents knew, and are thus manifestly incompetent, or they colluded in a cover-up and orchestrated deception.
As the facts are revealed, the weight of evidence tilts toward the latter conclusion.
Why? Because we now know there never was any protest at the Benghazi compound — not against an anti-Muslim video or anything else.
And if there was no protest, who sent Carney out to blame the attack on the protest? And if there was no protest, who programmed Rice and put her on five separate Sunday talk shows to attribute the massacre to a protest that never happened?
If real-time intelligence and U.S. agents at the scene knew it was premeditated, preplanned terrorism by Sept. 12, who told Rice to deny specifically on Sept. 16 that the attack was premeditated or preplanned?
Indeed, why was Rice sent out at all? She is not in the chain of command. Why she accepted the assignment is obvious. She wants to be Hillary Clinton’s successor as secretary of state. But who put her up to this? Who pushed her out front to mislead us?
The CIA’s David Petraeus or Director of National Intelligence James Clapper should have been sent out to say what we knew, five days after the massacre. As Chris Stevens reported to the secretary of state and President Obama, why was Hillary or National Security Adviser Tom Donilon not sent out to explain what had happened to Stevens and the others?
Looking back, Carney and Rice appear to have been used by their superiors.
Carney would never have gone out to speculate on his own about what happened in Benghazi. His line on Sept. 14 had to have been fed to him by the White House chief of staff, Donilon, Obama or all of them.
As for Rice, someone contacted those five TV networks to put her on. And the party line she delivered — the opposite of the truth — had to have been fed to her, almost word for word — by Donilon or the chief of staff.
Could Donilon or Hillary have been in the dark about what Rice was going to say? Could they have still been in the dark about what had happened five days before in Benghazi, when Hillary’s own deputy Charlene Lamb had followed the terrorist attack in near real time?
Hillary and the entire Obama national security team are in that famous photo with Obama watching Seal Team Six in Abbottabad when Osama bin Laden was taken down.
Was the National Security Council alerted by Lamb when she was observing the attack in near real time? Did the NSC also observe?
Was the president told by the NSC that we were getting real-time intel and video from Benghazi, and would he like to see?
There is an even more fundamental question:
Why did the White House persist with the phony story of a protest against a video being the cause of Ambassador Stevens’ death, when they had to know there was no protest?
The most plausible explanation is that the truth — we were being hit with the worst terror attack since 9/11 in a city we saved — would have exposed Obama’s boasting about his Libya triumph and al-Qaida being “on the run” and “on the path to defeat” as absurd propaganda.
Al-Qaida is now in Libya, Mali, Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Pakistan.
And the epidemic of anti-American riots across the Muslim world, with Arab Spring elections bringing to power Islamist regimes, testify to the real truth. After four years of Obama, it is America that is on the run in the Middle East.
But we can’t let folks find that out until after Nov. 6.
Hence the Benghazi cover-up.


  1. Cause they had been requested security, didn't provide it, suddenly had dead bodies on their hands, and like responsible public servants, ran like hell for cover.

    Obama is a stupid arrogant devious yet foolish son of a bitch. He didn't have to blab about guns, for instance, yet he did.

    Now he's got the NRA, peace be upon them, up his ass -

    Totally avoidable. Worth one or two points to Romney, the guy says at the end, and I believe it, too.

    1. Could this possibly flip Rufus, who warned us that without the 2nd we had nothing?

  2. I continue to be shocked, awed, amazed and unswayed by the pernicious assault on the search for truth by the US MSM, an assault that has now metastasized into a full-on campaign of disinformation and partisan assistance to their chosen ideology.

    Why pretend that they are otherwise? Why give respect, tolerance and deference to their false claim of being objective journalists?

    Suspend them. Call them what they really are, security risks to truth,

    1. Happily, their 'ratings' are going into the toilet.

  3. a scandal that makes Watergate look like cheating at tiddlywinks

    Though vague about details, Obama and Clinton were clear, unequivocal and emphatic about a few key points during that official statement: (1) this assault on the Libyan consulate was an expression of understandable anger in the Arab world about a YouTube video mocking Muhammad; (2) the American government will not tolerate any intolerance toward Islam; and (3) violence - even as an expression of understandable anger over "disgusting" and "offensive" YouTube videos - never solves anything.

    Read more:

    Another answer is that Obama is a moslim sympathizer, so much so that one might call him a moslim.(No more beautiful sound than that morning call to prayer)

    It is now obvious that the U.S. government's original story about the Benghazi consulate attack, delivered by its two heaviest hitters, the president and secretary of state, was false, and, more importantly, that it was intended to deceive. How can Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton outrun the scandal that now chases them, a scandal that makes Watergate look like cheating at tiddlywinks? As if "Fast and Furious" weren't enough, the administration now gives America "Slow and Spurious."

    It is really unbelievable that people still give Obama the benefit of any doubt whatsoever. Raised with so much moslim influence in his youth, one would think people might start to 'get it' one of these days. This guy is not, like my wife says, "one of us". He is alien and foreign to our way of life.

  4. By Neal Boortz

    The in ability of the Obama administration to get its story straight on Libya is laughable and a complete disservice to those who lost their lives as a result of their incompetence, and last night’s debate episode didn’t help. If there had been honesty from the beginning, perhaps this story would not be in the headlines day after day. But instead, Obama’s campaign seems to be running the show, rather than the White House. Key decisions seem to be being made based on Obama’s re-election campaign, rather than based on fact or truth.

    Why else would we have gotten the “video” excuse for 7-10 days? Then it was the intelligence community … they didn’t know that they needed more security! A congressional hearing blew that one out of the water. So then they had to bring in the big guns: Hillary Clinton. She was forced to die on the sword in order to save the Messiah from any more pain on the campaign trail.

    Now it has changed, AGAIN!

    Susan Rice has made her first public statements since her grandiose “blame the video” parade where she made the rounds to various talk shows to explain how a video spawned the terrorist attack on 9/11. She has now come out and thrown the blame back on the intelligence community. Rice says that she used updates and talking points prepared by the intelligence community for senior administration officials. But then Hillary Clinton pops up, trying to do some CYA for Susan Rice, saying that her misinformation was due to the “fog of war.” So which was it … misinformation because of the “fog of war” or was that really what the intelligence community prepared for senior officials?

    And after all that … Barack Obama is now, once again, responsible for the safety and security of all diplomats overseas. Not Hillary.

    At this point, the entire Obama cadre is looking like a bunch of amateurs. Blame and excuses and taking responsibility … none of it seems to be working any more. The people have seen all they need to see: The inner-workings of an incompetent administration, which ultimately cost the lives of four Americans.

    Buy the way … this is the same intelligence community that Obama assures us has assured him that Iran doesn’t yet have the capability to build a nuclear bomb. Oh yeah. I feel so much safer now.

  5. Four Americans - "just a bump in the road"