The controversy over the terrorist attack in Libya on September 11, 2001, continues to grow. Yesterday, Reuters obtained copies of e-mails from the State Department that indicate the White House and the State department were notified of the attack on the consulate within 2 hours after it began. There has been sworn testimony from State Department officials that the White House was informed that the attack was carried out by a terrorist group at least within 24 hours after it occurred. And now there are reports that the United States had at least one drone in the area and that at least part of the attack was monitored via cameras on the drone.
Yet, for almost two weeks following the attack the President and Secretary of State, as well as our Ambassador to the United Nations, insisted the attack was spontaneous following a protest of a ridiculous video denouncing the Islamic prophet Mohammed. The question is - why?
Here is my theory.
For months now the President has been saying that Al Qaeda has been decimated and that other terrorist organizations are scattered and largely ineffective in the Middle East. The attack on our consulate in Benghazi pretty much tossed those declarations out the window. The President had to come up with something that would explain the attack adequately while still protecting Obama's foreign policies in the Middle East that seem to be failing miserably. He and his cronies saw the protests in Cairo and fabricated a story blaming the video for the attack, trying to convince the American people that the attack was the spontaneous result of protests against the video that simply got out of hand. They knew it was not only untrue but basically ridiculous, yet they pushed the story over and over, never expecting overwhelming proof to the contrary to surface.
Even after the President finally admitted the truth about the origin of the attack (During the second debate he tried to say he declared it a terrorist attack on September 12th, another blatant lie.) he went to the United Nations a couple of days later and blamed the video six times. Apparently he just wasn't ready to give up on the lie even though the entire country, with the exception of die-hard Obamabots, knew the truth. It seems once the lies are told the President will do anything and everything to maintain the "integrity" of those lies regardless of how it makes him look. To borrow from the left-wing mantra from the Bush era... "People died and Obama lied."
There is another theory out there today that Ambassador Chris Stevens was working to supply American guns to the insurgents in Libya and that the terrorist organization that attacked the consulate got their hands on those guns. Can you say "Fast and Furious Libyan Version"? I have no idea if that's true but if it is, what better reason could there be for the President to lie about what happened? He certainly can't stand another Fast and Furious type incident just weeks before the election.
Now, there are those that will say that even though e-mails were sent the President didn't see or read them so he didn't know what actually happened. That theory could be absolutely true. However, if it is true that people in Obama's State Department and the White House had the information within hours and did not tell the President - it was an abysmal failure within his administration. And one that should show everyone the incompetence of the Obama administration.
What's truly interesting is the lack of main stream media investigation into this incident. CBS has looked at it and asked a few questions but the only network covering it in-depth is FOX, which liberals refuse to believe because FOX is constantly vilified by their own, lying leader. Regardless of the truth uncovered by FOX, the rest of the main stream media refuses to be journalists in favor of being campaign aides for the President.
The truth will eventually come out. It always does. We can only hope that President Obama is no longer President when it happens.