Andrew C. McCarthy @ NRO:
‘What would you be focusing on in the Benghazi investigation?” I spent many years in the investigation biz, so it’s only natural that I’ve been asked that question a lot lately.
I had the good fortune to be trained in Rudy Giuliani’s U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan. Rudy famously made his mark by making law enforcement reflect what common sense knew: Enterprises take their cues from the top. Criminal enterprises are no different: The capos do not carry out the policy of the button-men — it’s the other way around.
So if I were investigating Benghazi, I’d be homing in on that 10 p.m. phone call. That’s the one between President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — the one that’s gotten close to zero attention.
Benghazi is not a scandal because of Ambassador Susan Rice, State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland, and “talking points.” The scandal is about Rice and Nuland’s principals, and about what the talking points were intended to accomplish. Benghazi is about derelictions of duty by President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton before and during the massacre of our ambassador and three other American officials, as well as Obama and Clinton’s fraud on the public afterward.
A good deal of media attention has quite appropriately been lavished on e-mail traffic between mid-level administration officials in the days leading up to Sunday, September 16. That is the day when Ms. Rice, a close Obama confidant, made her appalling appearances on the Sunday-morning political shows. Those performances were transparently designed to mislead the American people, during the presidential campaign stretch run, into believing that an anti-Islamic Internet video — rather than a coordinated terrorist attack orchestrated by al-Qaeda affiliates, coupled with the Obama administration’s gross failure to secure and defend American personnel in Benghazi — was responsible for the killings.
Fraud flows from the top down, not the mid-level up. Mid-level officials in the White House and the State Department do not call the shots — they carry out orders. They also were not running for reelection in 2012 or positioning themselves for a campaign in 2016. The people doing that were, respectively, President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton.
Obama and Clinton had been the architects of American foreign policy. As Election Day 2012 loomed, each of them had a powerful motive to promote the impressions (a) that al-Qaeda had been decimated; (b) that the administration’s deft handling of the Arab Spring — by empowering Islamists — had been a boon for democracy, regional stability, and American national security; and (c) that our real security problem was “Islamophobia” and the “violent extremism” it allegedly causes — which was why Obama and Clinton had worked for years with Islamists, both overseas and at home, to promote international resolutions that would make it illegal to incite hostility to Islam, the First Amendment be damned.
All of that being the case, I am puzzled why so little attention has been paid to the Obama-Clinton phone call at 10 p.m. on the night of September 11.
Even in the conservative press, it has become received wisdom that President Obama was AWOL on the night of September 11, after first being informed by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, in the late afternoon, that the State Department facility in Benghazi was under attack. You hear it again and again: While Americans were under attack, the commander-in-chief checked out, leaving subordinates to deal with the crisis while he got his beauty sleep in preparation for a fundraising campaign trip to Vegas.
If both Hillary and Obama follow ”cause-effect,” logic then Andrew McC., is correct in his conclusion: that 10PM call between Obama and Hillary was to set in stone the use of the ”Mohammad video,” as the excuse for the whole Benghazi ”tragedy.”
I wonder how either one of them came across this Mohammad video in the first place?
It wasn’t viewed by anyone much.
BUT Obama liked the MB in Egypt.
Hillary’s best gal pal, Huma, is daughter of MB activists.
Was the video sent to Egypt via either one of them just so it could be cover for something else?
A theory has floated that Amb. Stevens was going to be held so Obama could be ”forced” to free Egypt’s Blind Sheik who was in prison for his part in the 1st World Trade Center bombing in 1993.
Did they have a false front story ready in the wings….then the plan got screwed up as Amb. Stevens was suffocated while his kidnapping plan took place?
So, they went with the video plan anyway?
If Stevens was part of the pipeline for shipping weapons stockpiles from Libya to anti-Assad, al-Queada forces in Syria, via Turkey, there is yet another twist to this. The group that hit Benghazi is/was rumored/reported to be Iranian backed, not MW-backed AQ. So, did our ambassador get killed as part of a proxy-war between Iran and the Saudis? Did our WH and State Dept. walk Stevens into the Den, not realizing there were real, live, hungry Beasts in it?