Where did that fabricated story about the attack upon the US embassy in Libya come from? This has now become the pressing question of the presidential campaign in the United States.
The story (now proven to be "spin") came to the widespread attention of the country when Ambassador Susan Rice went on six weekend talk shows one Sunday to tell the nation five days later that the attack upon the US embassy compound in Benghazi, Libya which killed four US government employees including the US ambassador, was a spontaneous demonstration of public rage incited and caused by an anti-Islam film made in the US.
Up until that time few had heard of the now-demonised video. Hillary Clinton's US Secretary of State has now gone on the record stating that the State Department at no time, not even at the beginning of the attack thought that it was a public demonstration gone wrong. This from the Daily Mail:
In a briefing on Tuesday, State Department officials said 'others' in the executive branch concluded initially that the attack was part of a protest against the film, which ridiculed the Prophet Muhammad. That was never the State Department's conclusion, reporters were told.Both the State Department and the Defense Department believed that it was a deliberate, terrorist attack--from the beginning. It had nothing to do, they concluded, with a public demonstration that turned violent. This from Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense:
"The reason I think it pretty clearly was a terrorist attack is because a group of terrorists obviously conducted that attack on the consulate and against our individuals,” he told a Pentagon briefing. “What terrorists were involved I think still remains to be determined by the investigation. But it clearly was a group of terrorists who conducted that attack against that facility.”
OK. So where did the story come from? Within one day, (Sept 12th) President Obama was implying that "denigration of religious beliefs" was the cause.
Sept. 12: As these homicides become clear, Obama says, "We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, but there is absolutely no justification for this type of senseless violence. None." Obama then skips his daily intelligence briefing and jets to a Las Vegas fundraiser.Within two days (Sept. 13th), Hillary Clinton was fingering the video as the true cause of the deaths of the Ambassador.
Sept. 13: "The United States government had absolutely nothing to do with this video," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declares. "We absolutely reject its content and message."The next day (Sept 14th) White House Press Secretary, Jay Carney said:
Sept. 14: "The unrest we've seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney announces.
That day, as the murdered Americans' remains reach Andrews Air Force Base, Clinton says: "We have seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with."
Enter Susan Rice, the US Ambassador to the UN. On Sunday, Sept 16th She emphatically told the nation via repeated appearances on national weekend cable shows six days after the tragedy that the deaths came from a public demonstration against a video defaming Islam which had been made in the US. Now, we know (from Brit Hume) that no-one from the US administration is allowed to appear on the weekend talk shows without explicit approval from the White House. So, Rice's effort was a direct extension of the White House's spin.
But now we know that it was all false. The defence now has morphed into "Well, it's what we were told at the time". OK. So who told Clinton, Carney, Obama, and Rice et al. that the deaths in Libya were a result of a public demonstration against an anti-Islamic video? No-one has come forward. Clearly the US intelligence community, the Defense Department and the Department of State did not so brief their political masters. It has now become clear they never believed that, even when it was occurring.
Where did the story come from? Silence. It is now clear that on the part of Clinton, Carney, Obama, Rice et al. it was a conjecture at best, or a wild fabrication, at worst. But why?
Our best guess is because that's the way Obama (and his colleagues) see the world. They are pre-committed to interpret uprisings against the US in the Muslim world that way. If Muslims are mad at us its because we have offended them. It is at the heart of the Obama Doctrine. It appears to be a classic example of the syndrome of fabricating "facts" to conform to a one's world-view.
Others have suggested that Obama had been extolling his success at defeating Al Qaeda via the execution of Osama Bin Laden. To admit that terrorists were alive and well and fighting back would be a public humiliation. Either way, it would represent fabrication and pure spin.
There are few things more dangerous than a political leader who believes his own propaganda. The Bible says that God gives men up to the remorseless tyranny of their own lies. Obama and his coterie appear well down that track.