« Specious Argument of the Day | Main | Run Along Now, Children »

October 25, 2012

Rudy Giuliani on the Two Prior Benghazi Attacks

On the way home from work last night, the Blog Princess listened to Rudy Giuliani's remarks to the Chamber of Commerce on CSPAN. His comments on the Benghazi debacle were spot on:

Our consulate in Benghazi was attacked twice before, in April and June of 2012 that exact consulate was attacked by Islamic extremist terrorists. The second time it was attacked, they blew a hole in the wall and according to the eye witnesses, it was big enough for a truck to go through.

Now I want to know if the President knew that? I want to know if the President knew that on September 12th, 2012? I can't conceive that he didn't know it. If he didn't know it, we are really in a disaster.

If somehow the consulate in Benghazi could be attacked twice, once with a big hole in the wall, and the National Security Advisor during the security briefings he's supposed to get every day didn't tell him, then we have a serious problem. What is the answer? Did he know about it?

If he didn't know about it, explain two things to me. Why wasn't there further security for the consulate? Why were we there in the first place? The British pulled their consulate out. They pulled the consulate out after the first attack. The British government wasn't afraid of the embarrassment that might happen because maybe Libya wasn't as successful as the Obama administration was trying to pretend it was. They were more concerned about the safety and lives of their personnel.

We have the two attacks. We didn't give the consulate any more security. According to State Department employees we rejected requests for more security and we actually reduced the security!

Now when the attack takes place on September 11, you're the President of the United States and there have been two prior terrorist attacks on that consulate. How long does it take you to figure out that this was not a protest over a Mohammed movie but was actually an attack by the same Islamist extremists that tried to attack it before?

I say it takes you about one minute to figure it out. I figured it out about three minutes after I was told about it.

..When I was told about it, my first reaction was: September 11? An attack? Benghazi? Got to be a planned terrorist attack. Instead, we're treated to two or three weeks of nonsense about the Mohammed movie and how this crazy man who did this stupid movie caused this.

I can't -- there's something really wrong here.

If in fact the President knew about those two prior attacks, it can't be possible he would allow the administration to peddle that drivel for two weeks when you know that this consulate was a target of Islamic extremist terrorists TWICE before and there was a third time.

And before this election gets decided, someone should get that answer from the President. I was kind of disappointed during the debate because we didn't find that out. But hopefully before the election is over, we will.

For the life of me, I can't understand why the media isn't all over the fact that this same consulate was attacked two other times in less than 6 months. That's not a minor detail: it's a bombshell.

In the five months leading up to this year’s 9/11 anniversary, there were two bombings on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and increasing threats to and attacks on the Libyan nationals hired to provide security at the U.S. missions in Tripoli and Benghazi.

... The letter also discloses for the first time a bombing at the U.S. consulate that occurred on April 6, 2012. It says that on that day, two former security guards for the consulate in Benghazi threw homemade improvised explosives over the consulate fence. That incident resulted in no casualties. The Wall Street Journal first reported last month that on June 6 militants detonated an explosive at the perimeter gate of the consulate, blowing a hole through the barrier. The letter to Clinton quotes one source who described the crater as “big enough for forty men to go through.”

I know I've made this point several times already, but if you're the President and you know our consulate has already been attacked not once, but TWICE in the past few months, how on earth can you not take an active interest how this situation is being managed?

Not to do so is criminal negligence, and it has cost four American lives.

Posted by Cassandra at October 25, 2012 07:05 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4396

Comments

I can't understand why the media isn't all over the fact that this same consulate was attacked two other times in less than 6 months.

It's the NLMSM. This is old news. Don't disturb the narrative.

What's not to understand here? Perhaps you're proceeding from the premise that the NLMSM is an unbiased, objective observer of the facts?

You're too young to remember: that great icon of the NLMSM, Walter Cronkite, opened my eyes to the dishonesty of the media when he opened his commentary at the outset of the Tet Offensive with "What's going on here!?" and proceeded to castigate the Johnson administration for being caught flat-footed by it. Never mind that that battle resulted in the destruction of the Viet Cong as a fighting, much less a political, force for the rest of the war and subsequent restructuring of the south.

In subsequent reporting on the Viet Nam war generally, journalists also openly admitted they were biasing their reporting: the government lied to them, therefore it's legitimate for us to lie back.

Separately, this is of a piece with a common Obama refrain: others did this [misdeed] before us; it's illegitimate to criticize us for doing the same.

Dishonesty for dishonesty seems to be the culture of the Left.

Eric Hines

Eric Hines

Posted by: E Hines at October 25, 2012 10:25 AM

The President does not respond because it is in the interest of the President, or certainly in the interest of his ideology, not to respond. Mr. Obama is ruled by the idea of redistribution - the redistribution of not only wealth but of power and influence both nationally and globally (first world to third world; Christian (nominally) world to muslim).

Obama's impression of indifference or carelessness works to that redistribution and is in concert with his dual role as apologizer/apologist in chief; apologizer for our (and the first world's) transgressions, and apologist for their (Islam's) violently expressed grievances, angst and rage.

When Obama invites the Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) to sit front row center during his Cairo speech, when MB officials visit the White House regularly, when the MB is represented in government departments it is not a sign of negligence but of policy – or negligence as policy – and ideological schadenfreude.

Posted by: George Pal at October 25, 2012 11:26 AM

I'm going to withhold judgment until after all of the facts are denied.

Posted by: spd rdr at October 25, 2012 11:27 AM

"I'm going to withhold judgment until after all of the facts are denied."

Medic! I just cycled another spoon of vegetable soup through my sinus cavity and on to my monitor!


Surely Rudi must be aware that the THE Ø's extended absence from the PDBs allows, if not enables the Kabuki Theater currently playing on our screens. And the Fifth Column maneuvers as it always has. At least since the days of Cronkite and Rather's tour of duty, just as Mr. Hines observed.

Indeed and in spite of DOS, DNI, and DAPOTUS doing their hear-see-speak no evil, unless it's a GOPer, banker, TPer, or anyone other than a mutt routine, to me the most disturbing part of this tragedy is to learn that two men were still fighting off the Mufsid up to nine hours after the attack began, and apparently no freakin' attempt to aid them was ordered... I'd better hush now before I wind up having uninvited guests appear at my door.

//stares at screen through soup residue and works up the nerve to ask,//

Commisar Cassandrovna, may I have Rudi's beet slice?

Posted by: bthunski at October 25, 2012 12:28 PM

"TPer"

*stuffs empty Charmin package into pocket*

Whut?
I wadn't doin' anything.

Posted by: Evil Twin at October 25, 2012 03:30 PM

//bthunski should have known better than to use a TLA for the Tea Party with the Evil Twin on the loose... Not to mention hoping ET keeps the cookies in a different pocket//

//bthunski now returns to his regularly scheduled bushhogging//

Posted by: bthunski at October 25, 2012 04:48 PM

Commisar Cassandrovna, may I have Rudi's beet slice?

You'll have to fight AFE for it!

Posted by: Cassandra at October 25, 2012 05:28 PM

For the life of me, I can't understand why the media isn't all over the fact that this same consulate was attacked two other times in less than 6 months. That's not a minor detail: it's a bombshell.

Now Cass, that is a rhetorical question isn't it?

Answer: If George W Bush had been in charge they would have been on it - getting to the bottom of it.

Posted by: Bill Brandt at October 26, 2012 12:41 AM

"I'm going to withhold judgment until after all of the facts are denied." (the vowel-hating spd)

There are facts?

*thud*

My Papa remembered that infamous broadcast; he proceeded to call Walter Cronkite by his new name: Walter Contrite.

Mr. Brandt:
"Answer: If George W Bush had been in charge they would have been on it - getting to the bottom of it."

Agreed and would add: They would not only get to the bottom of it, but if there was any way they found out that there was a bona fide reason to keep the embassy open, they would spin it as aggressive empire-building and oppression.

Posted by: PuffOnMeds at October 26, 2012 07:17 AM

Conversely, if Bush had closed the embassy, it would have been a slap in the face to the people of Libya.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Posted by: PuffsBigSister at October 26, 2012 07:20 AM

But I doubt W would have gotten involved in the way O did, creating a power vacuum in Libya (and also pushing out Mubarak in Egypt without a guarantee there was a moderate to take his place)...

Posted by: Miss Ladybug at October 26, 2012 11:33 AM

They're out there saying the Benghazi attack was a reaction to a video, when there had been two prior terrorist attacks there? This reeks of a cover-up.

Posted by: Cupofwrath.com at November 3, 2012 03:52 AM

Post a comment

To reduce comment spam, comments on older posts are put into moderation 5 days after the last activity. Comments with more than one link also go into moderation. If you don't see your comment after posting it, try refreshing the screen. If you still don't see it, your comment is probably in the moderation queue.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)