Libya for dummies

It’s difficult to keep up with the crush of news related to the 9/11 assault on the American consulate in Benghazi that took the life of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. Reader Martin Karo offers the following brief summary:

After the latest Libya shoe dropped — the letter of House Oversight Committee Chairman Darryl Issa to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — I felt a need to summarize events for low-information voters, starting with myself. There are so many different pieces floating around, most of which have been written about in detail, but no soup-to-nuts summary that I know of, and we’re losing the forest view among the trees. So, in roughly chronological order:

1. As terrorist/militia activity in Benghazi becomes more bold — with at least 13 security deterioration episodes documented, including several attacks on the US Consulate itself — the local mission, over a span of months, repeatedly begs the Obama Administration for better security. Requests denied.

2. In early September, US intelligence community gets specific warnings that Al Qaida and affiliates are planning attacks on US overseas missions, to coincide with the 9/11 anniversary. Nothing is done, and nothing communicated to the US missions in Libya, despite well-known al Qaeda/terrorist presence in Benghazi.

3. Mr. Obama skips his daily national security intelligence briefings during early September, right up through 9/11. There’s a campaign to win, you know. Priorities.

4. Al Qaeda-linked terrorists, using heavy military weapons, assaults the US Consulate in Benghazi; the ambassador flees to a safe house; the terrorists know where the safe house is, go there and murder him (and — unreported in the US MSM — “abuse” the Ambassador, in the local media’s quaint phrase, either before or after his death).

5. The Obama administration finds out within hours that it was an al Qaeda attack.

6. Armed with the information that the US has been attacked by an enemy declared to be at war with us, Mr. Obama immediately swings into action. He issues a statement deploring the deaths and jets off to a fundraiser in Las Vegas. He also skips the intelligence briefing the following morning. After all, he already knows the US was attacked and the ambassador murdered in a terrorist assault. No point in exploring the obvious.

7. Nevertheless, for two weeks the Obama administration insists the murders were an overly exuberant protest over an obscure Internet clip, and the ambassador died of smoke inhalation after being separated from his group in a fire. They hold this line even as it becomes increasingly obvious this was a preplanned attack, and the ambassador met a much harsher fate.

8. Questioned early on over these obvious lies, the State Department says it will have no further comment because the matter is under criminal investigation, and they don’t want to interfere with a criminal investigation.

9. A criminal investigation of what now even the Obama administration admits was a terrorist attack? In Libya? Is there no such thing as an act of war to these people? But I digress.

10. When they’re finally exposed as flat-out lying to such an extent even the MSM can’t ignore it, the Obama administration retreats, insisting its initial lies were mistakes based on bad intelligence briefings and blaming the CIA.

11. The relentless, resourceful G-Men get on the case: The FBI holds a press conference, then flies its people to Tripoli. They do not go to Benghazi, i.e., they don’t go to the “crime” scene or interview any of the witnesses to the “crime.”

12. The third line of retreat position is the State Department claim that Ambassador Stevens wasn’t worried about security. How were they to know that there was a problem if the Ambassador did not?

13. CNN does some actual reporting, finds the ambassador’s diary, and lo and behold, he was very, very concerned about security. Congressman Issa separately finds out about the numerous prior requests to beef up security.

14. The Obama administration goes all in, or rather all out, and pulls all US personnel from Benghazi. So much for even the fig leaf “criminal investigation.” But State still refuses to answer questions.

Note the one thing that ties all these points together? In none of them does the Obama Administration betray a hint of concern for United States security. Draw your own conclusions.

Mr. Karo adds this footnote: “If you want independent indications of the ‘abuse’ in point 4, I refer you to this Power Line post. Note the Ambassador’s pants are on backwards, and his belt is unbuckled. I can still come up with no valid rescue scenario that would cause this. But if avoiding international outrage were your goal, or you had a minimal concern for the decency of the man’s body as you hauled it away, a hasty re-dress job would be the ticket.”

Responses