First appeared in print in The Rhinoceros Times, Greensboro, NC
Here is what we know for a fact about the attack on the U.S. Consulate on 11 September 2012:
1. There was no demonstration beforehand.
2. There was a live internet feed to the White House situation room, showing the attack from beginning to end.
3. The consular officials sent repeated emails and other communications asking for help; the State Department, the CIA, and the White House had full knowledge of the nature and progress of the attack from beginning to end.
4. The attack lasted for seven hours.
5. There were military forces in Italy and elsewhere that could have put boots on the ground within two hours.
6. There were jets that could have provided pinpoint air support to suppress enemy fire within twenty minutes' flying time.
7. There were trained U.S. Navy Seals and other combat-capable persons within walking distance of the U.S. Consulate, who were issued direct orders to stand down and not aid the Americans who were under attack.
8. Two of those Seals disobeyed that order, and died defending the consulate: Tyrone S. Woods and Glen A. Doherty.
9. U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and Foreign Service information officer Sean Smith were killed in the attack.
10. American consuls and embassies are, by international law and treaties, American soil, and we do not need permission from the local government or the cooperation of allies to have the right to defend them with all necessary force.
11. Only one person has the authority to authorize sending additional military forces in such a situation: the President of the United States.
The Three Lies of Obama
1. The attack on the consulate grew out of a spontaneous demonstration provoked by an American-made anti-Muslim video.
2. Obama's administration is conducting a thorough investigation of the incident, and will report on it fully ... after the election.
3. Obama is providing Congress and the American people with all the information that he now has.
The truth about those lies:
The White House, the State Department, the CIA, and the Defense Department all knew, very early in the fighting, that it was a well-planned, well-armed terrorist attack, and that it was probably being carried out by a group that is linked to or part of Al-Qaeda.
There was never a single moment when anyone in the administration believed that the Libya attack had any link with the video.
Whatever the investigators are investigating, there is no need for them to ask who is responsible for the decision not to send military support to the Americans who were trying to defend themselves from an unprovoked attack by declared enemies of the United States.
Here are the only possible scenarios for that decision, in descending order of likelihood:
President Obama was kept fully informed, and issued the order for American military forces to do nothing -- including the former Navy Seals who were within minutes of the scene.
President Obama was not informed, or could not be reached for a decision, or simply did not make a decision during the hours of the attack, and therefore the orders to stand down came from underlings who dared not let any military action proceed in the absence of a decision from the President.
The Obama administration does not expect to inform him of such events, does not wait for his decision, and instead someone else made the decisions that led to the Obama administration's failure to defend Americans who were under attack, and issued those orders in Obama's name.
One of these scenarios is true, or close to the truth. In every case, complete responsibility for the decision still rests with President Barack Obama.
President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta are now, and were at the time of the attack, in possession of all 11 facts listed above. They could have released all the information at the time of the attack and any time thereafter.
When Obama says that he is giving and has given the American people and the Congress all the information he has, as soon as he gets it, he is not "mistaken" or "misspeaking" or "spinning." He is lying.
Why Isn't This Story on ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC?
The official excuse is that because there's an ongoing investigation, it's inappropriate to comment. After all, until there's evidence it's not a story. Especially in the last week before an election, it is wrong to run with a story that would damage one of the candidates, unless you're absolutely sure of the facts.
This excuse is an obvious lie.
Every one of these news outlets gave heavy coverage to Harry Reid's accusation of Mitt Romney on 2 August 2012, in which he claimed, with no evidence whatsoever, that Romney had manipulated his tax returns so as to pay no taxes at all for the previous ten years.
This claim turned out to be completely false, but it was known even at the time that Reid had no evidence for his claim.
It was also obvious that this claim would damage a presidential candidate.
Yet every one of these news organizations gave wide coverage to Reid's accusation, because the accusation itself was an important story.
So any claim that these news organizations refuse to rush to judgment on a story because of lack of evidence, or because it would unduly influence an election, is obviously false. They have no such standard; it was invented solely to protect President Obama.
From this moment on, these television programs have forfeited any right to be called "news organizations," or that they protect "the public's right to know." They clearly believe that the public only has the right to know things that will lead them to vote for the candidate that these organizations prefer, and that any information that would lead them to oppose that candidate should be suppressed.
The nicest word for what this proves them to be is "publicists for the administration."
Now they are hoping that the big storm hitting the east coast will provide a smokescreen behind which they can hide while continuing to suppress information about Obama's dishonorable actions and his subsequent lies.
The only television network that is giving these facts the kind of coverage they deserve is Fox News; therefore Fox News has emerged as the only remaining news organization on television.
I urge you to go on the Internet and view the following sequences:
Here is Jeanine Pirro's opening on her show Justice with Judge Jeanine of 27 October.
The words that matter most in the following sequence on the same show are "culpable negligence".
In this clip, ignore Ann Coulter; what matters are the words of pollster Pat Caddell, one of the few remaining Democrats who still believes, as I do, in honor, and in the responsibility of the media to tell the truth.
Why Did Obama Behave So Dishonorably?
The motive for the lying is obvious: If Obama's dishonorable and disgusting decisions were openly admitted, even with an apology, it would be almost impossible for any person who takes the Presidency seriously to vote for Obama to continue to retain that office.
As to why Obama gave the order to abandon American citizens to the tender mercies of terrorist attackers, when help was within easy reach, we can only guess.
Some speculate that Obama feared that engaging our military would be an open admission that Bush was right all along, and we are at war with Islamic terrorists, not just with Osama bin Laden. It would make it obvious that Obama's authorization of the assassination of bin Laden accomplished very little, while Obama's withdrawal from Afghanistan and his "leading from behind" in Libya have strengthened our enemies and damaged our friends.
Other speculate that Obama really believes that he can placate our enemies by showing "restraint." This is the kind of delusion that led appeasers to keep giving Hitler everything he wanted in the 1930s, despite the obvious fact that Hitler was preparing for war and all the appeasement merely weakened the democracies when the war came.
Appeasement of Islamic terrorists is exactly as ineffective as appeasement of Hitler. In fact, Obama's policy of appeasement has made America even less popular in the Muslim world.
"In June, Pew surveyed public opinion in six majority-Muslim nations: Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Tunisia, Turkey, and Pakistan. In four of these nations--Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Pakistan--favorable feelings toward the United States (already incredibly low) have slipped even further. For instance, whereas 19 percent of Pakistanis expressed favorable views of America at the end of the Bush administration, only 12 percent do so now. On the whole, Pew found a 10 percent decrease in U.S. favorability among citizens in Muslim countries over the course of the Obama administration." (From James Kirchick, "The Global Popularity Fetish," Commentary, Oct. 2012.)
The war with Islamic terrorists is already underway and has been for decades; Obama's policies will not end that war, they will merely make it more likely that we will lose it.
So even if Obama had not lied to cover up his decision not to support American diplomatic personnel in the terrorist attack in Benghazi, he would still be a dangerous man to leave in command of America's defense.
The single most important task of the American President is not health care. It is not economic "fairness."
The single most important task of the American President is protecting America from its enemies, and Obama is a complete failure -- by his own choice, and as a matter of policy.
What Can You Do?
1. Make sure all your friends know what Obama did, since most of the major "news" media aren't telling them. (For instance, in Sunday's News & Record, there was not one mention of the new information that had come out about the Benghazi attack.)
Forward this essay to them. Go to the websites I linked to and forward those links to your friends.
2. Stop watching the "news" programs that protect Obama's lies instead of protecting your right to know.
3. Cancel your subscription to newspapers that protect Obama's lies and ignore your right to have the news even when it might hurt their pet candidate.
4. Write to or call your Congressman and Senators, asking them to introduce a joint resolution requesting that the President of the United States posthumously award the Medal of Honor to Tyrone S. Woods and Glen A. Doherty. It is the only action Congress can take at this time, but every Congressman and Senator should go on record, and they should do it now.
Obama's decisions during the Benghazi attack, and his lies afterward, are the most disgraceful actions of any American President. Compared to those actions, the Watergate and Monica Lewinski coverups were nothing.
Other presidents have made mistakes, but this is the first president to make the deliberate decision to abandon American public servants who were under attack in the line of duty, when there were ample forces easily capable of intervening to protect them.
Remember that President Carter at least tried to rescue the hostages in Iran. His attempt failed, in part because of his own decision to weaken our military capability -- but he understood the responsibility of the President to defend American diplomats.
Obama has abrogated that responsibility; his administration has joined him in trying to conceal his dishonorable choices; we cannot afford to leave them in control of our national defense any longer.
Obama dithered, Americans died,
And then Obama lied and lied.
Footnote: In case you wonder whether the Congressional Medal of Honor can be given to persons not currently serving in the U.S. military, and who were acting against direct orders, here is the text of the applicable regulation from page 38 of AR 600-8-22, item 3-7. Medal of Honor, paragraph b:
"The Medal of Honor is awarded by the President in the name of Congress to a person who, while a member of the Army, distinguishes himself or herself conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his or her life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States; while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force; or while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party. The deed performed must have been one of personal bravery or self-sacrifice so conspicuous as to clearly distinguish the individual above his comrades and must have involved risk of life. Incontestable proof of the performance of the service will be exacted and each recommendation for the award of this decoration will be considered on the standard of extraordinary merit." (http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r600_8_22.pdf )
Note that the "while a member of the Army" restriction seems to apply only to the first of three cases. The medal has been given to persons not in the Army, so it obviously can be extended to include other situations. In Benghazi, Woods and Doherty, both retired Navy Seals, distinguished themselves conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of their lives above and beyond the call of duty "... while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force."
The fact that they were disobeying dishonorable orders makes it all the clearer that their actions were "above and beyond the call of duty."
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.