We now know, McClatchy news has come out with the story that practically explains everything. Let me summarize it for you. McClatchy news says that the regime's concoction of the video story to explain the attack in Benghazi was a purposeful cover created by the regime to cover up the disaster that our operation involving the removing of Moammar Khadafy proved to be.
Getting rid of Khadafy basically turned the Benghazi area into an Al-Qaeda stronghold. That was the truth of the matter, and that's what the regime doesn't want anybody to know, or didn't. So they concocted the story that the video was responsible for the death of the ambassador and the three other Americans in the attack in Benghazi, because the regime had tried to tell this great story, "Look what we did. We cleaned up Libya. We got rid of an evil guy, and we've made Libya part of the Arab Spring, a great outbreak of democracy. Look, aren't we wonderful." When instead what happened was we kicked him out of there and then left ourselves, and we left ourselves nobody to control what was happening in the aftermath, and Al-Qaeda has established a beachhead in Benghazi.
Obama's running around saying that there is no more Al-Qaeda, until yesterday when he pulled it out of his speeches. He was saying there was no more Al-Qaeda. I'll tell you, what we have learned overnight and this morning, Romney is so set up for the foreign policy debate on Monday night, and there's much more detail to this. You know, brevity is the soul of wit. Everything that I am going to say down the road here on the program today basically will be to explain how McClatchy learned this. It involves the CIA. The CIA knew within 24 hours that it was a militant attack, that there was no video, there was no spontaneous demonstration. The State Department knew immediately. The W
hite House knew. It was Jay Carney who started the lie. It was Jay Carney under orders, I'm sure, from Obama and whoever else, which started the ball rolling on the video, and then Susan Rice gets involved. And again, all of that was to cover up an absolute disaster. Taking Khadafy out, it's arguable whether that was a good thing to do, but we did it, and in the process Obama's raising the flag, (Obama impression) "Look at me, look at me. I mean, I can pull the trigger as good as anybody, get bin Laden, take care of Libya." And what happened was, in fact, the ringleader of the Benghazi attack is now doing media appearances in the Middle East. He' going on The Oprah shows of that region bragging about what he did. He's not hiding behind a mask or anything. The ringleader of the attack is doing media appearances, is doing television shows.
Let's go quickly to John Bolton. A couple of audio sound bites here. Numbers ten and 11. He was on American Newsroom with Martha MacCallum this morning on Fox. And I love Bolton. You know, Bolton, former UN ambassador for us during Bush, tough-as-nails guy. He's very, very much into ideology and he is of the belief that the reason everything's falling apart in the Middle East is because of Obama's ideology, because of his liberalism, or Marxism or socialism, whatever you want to call it. His view that America is to blame, his view that it's always America's fault, and that's what enabled him to so easily swerve into blaming an American-made video, when he knew that's what it was not, by the way.
Everybody knew it was not the video. They were lying on purpose to prevent the dots from being connected that Obama's action created an Al-Qaeda beachhead in Benghazi.
And, by the way, Benghazi, the government, the head of Libya is in Tripoli, and we learn here Tripoli has no control, the government has no control over what's going on in Benghazi. Benghazi's a rogue, renegade place, and it's now Al-Qaeda's. I mean, it is utterly devastating.
RUSH: Here is John Bolton. So he was again with Martha MacCallum today on Fox and talking about the way the regime handled the aftermath of the attack. (interruption) No, I don't... (interruption) I'm not in the... (interruption) I'm being asked a question here. If people would leave me alone, you know, I could probably get this show done in an hour. But since everybody wants to know what I think, they ask me even when I'm in the middle of a monologue.
I don't think Obama's "optimal" comment is that big a deal, but there is a point to be made about it. He has no trouble whatsoever excoriating an American citizen over a video. He'll describe that person in the most despicable terms. But when it comes to the death of the ambassador, "Well, yeah, the death of four Americans, it's not optimal." He does have a different set of values.
I don't think that thing as a stand alone is that big a deal. You might disagree. We'll talk about it. Anyway, back to John Bolton. MacCallum said to him, "It seems to me to some extent if you were in the [regime], you felt uncomfortable about the way it was handled initially, one thing that you could do you is sort of make it very clear to the American people that the investigation is ongoing.
"Potentially hear from John Brennan, for example, other people who are very high up in this operation who are supposed to be watching over counterterrorism activities around the world. That would give people some reassurance about what's happening to avenge the deaths of these four American citizens." She's basically asking, "Why didn't they just say, 'We don't know what happened yet; we're looking into it,' instead of blaming the video?"
Well, you know the answer now, but I want you to hear what Bolton said.
BOLTON: Some say, of course, there's a cover-up going on and that the administration's lying. I'm afraid there's actually a more disturbing explanation. The president's ideology has put a screen over his consciousness. And when the real world tries to intrude on it, it can't get through. Because after all: The War on Terror is over, Al-Qaeda's been defeated, the Arab Spring has brought democracy to Libya. And a terrorist attack that brutally kills four Americans is wildly inconsistent with that ideology and worldview. The president can't process reality, and his aides can't get through to him.
RUSH: Now, that's being charitable, but you get the point. Okay, in Obama's bubble -- in this bubble in which they live, in this alternate universe/this alternate reality -- he got rid of bin Laden and that got rid of Al-Qaeda and there isn't any more terrorism and the Arab Spring is a great democratic outgrowth. So anything that happens that challenges that has either gotta be covered up or erased.
Bolton is saying that Obama's ideology is such that he actually lives the belief that Al-Qaeda's been destroyed; that he believes there is no terrorism. Because his ideology is such that all he -- The Messiah! The One! -- has to do is say, "It's over," and it's over. We had a caller yesterday say, "You know, these guys are amazing. They have a two-hour meeting on creating jobs and think the problem's fixed. They authorize spending $800 billion to create jobs and move on. They think the problem's fixed."
That's living somewhere other than Realville.
Bolton says it's Obama's ideology. Yeah, that's true. I don't think there's any question about that. But I also believe that he does know, and I think he purposely covers this stuff up because he doesn't want the lies exposed. He doesn't want the lie that he lives exposed. So Martha MacCallum then said, "Okay, when you look at the world with regard to the last presidential debate Monday night, what is the most important foreign policy question that needs to be asked," Mr. Bolton?
BOLTON: Fundamentally it's America's place in the world. Do you believe that stability and peace and international security are enhanced by a strong American presence that provides stability and that protects our domestic way of life, or do you think that the Obama theory -- that a declining America is a safer America -- is the right answer? And I have my views on that subject, but I think that is the clear question.
RUSH: Now, "declining America." We hear that and we think of it in terms of economics, the declining economy. But he's talking about it in terms of America's standing in the world. And in Obama's world, we don't deserve to be a superpower. We never deserved to be one in the first place because we never really were. We cheated, lied, and stole from other people. We used their oil. We used their resources. We got their best brains and we brought 'em to our country. We were founded immorally and in an unjust way. We never deserved power. It's about time we got cut down to size. That's what Bolton means. Are we safer with an America that is not a superpower? Are we safer when America has no leadership position in the world? You ask Obama about American exceptionalism, and do you know what he'll say? (impression) "Well, I'm sure that Sweden, uhhh, thinks they're exceptional, too."
Meaning: "What right do we have to say we're better than anybody else?"
That's what he doesn't like. He will say that about himself, but this country? No way, Jack. He's hell-bent on breaking that reality. So we'll take a brief time-out. We'll come back, start with the Al Smith sound bites, and then we'll double back here and get into detail about the shocking McClatchy story today with a couple of AP dispatches as well that finally get to it.
Well, we say "finally," because we've already known the truth about Benghazi, but this documents it now. But even as we speak, by the way, ABC and NBC are still covering for Obama. They are not reporting any of what I've told you. They're not reporting any of what we knew a couple days ago. They are still spinning and still covering for Mr. Hope and Change, The One.
Now, Ed Morrissey over at Hot Air has really done a good job of putting a lot of this together.
"Earlier this morning, McClatchy asked why the Obama administration changed its story on the Benghazi terrorist attack after three days from an initial, vague reference to terrorist attacks to a demonstrably false narrative about a 'spontaneous demonstration' that never took place, and a YouTube video that had been on line for two months. That question got more pressing this morning, as the Associated Press reports that the CIA linked the attack to 'militants' in eastern Libya."
So he had the CIA linking it in a way that the Obama administration did not, along with the State Department. They knew the truth. CIA, State Department knew the truth. Obama was trying to cover it up. This is the AP story: "The CIA station chief in Libya reported to Washington within 24 hours of last month's deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate that there was evidence it was carried out by militants, not a spontaneous mob."
Now, this is devastating because the regime immediately blamed intel. Remember? They said the intelligence was bad. "Well, the first thing we got, the intel said it was a spontaneous --" The intel never said that. Folks, we've got a lie and a cover-up here that is bigger than Watergate. In my mind, there's no question about it. If you go back and recall the early days of this, the administration, Biden in the debate with Ryan, (paraphrasing) "Well, the best we knew at the time, the best we knew at the time, our intel at the time was, it was a spontaneous protest that got out of hand." No intel ever said that, folks. And none other than Administration Media says that today. The Administration Press. The intel never reported what the regime attributed to them. And Biden's in the debate with Ryan, and he said, "The best intel we had at the time, and nobody told us that there was a request for more security," and that's not true, either.
The CIA station chief, not some desk jockey. The head honcho, the CIA station chief in Libya reported to Washington within 24 hours of the attack that there was evidence it was carried out by militants, not a spontaneous mob upset about a video. US officials have now told this to the Administration Press. "It is unclear who, if anyone, saw the cable outside the CIA at that point and how high up in the agency the information went. The Obama administration maintained publicly for a week that the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi that killed US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans was a result of the mobs that staged less-deadly protests across the Muslim world," because of the video. It turns out not to be true.
It takes us back to the McClatchy report which basically says it was a cover-up of the disastrous effects of taking out Khadafy. It was not until the 14th -- remember this all happened on 9/11 this year -- it was not until the 14th that the Obama administration went all-in on the YouTube video. They didn't do it immediately, but they also didn't assign it to a terrorist attack, contrary to what Obama and Candy Crowley tried to say at the debate. They did not attribute it to a terrorist attack specifically. They attributed it to a mob, a protest that went nuts, and then in the third day, the video story started.
Now, the Associated Press, in their story, wonders if anybody read the CIA cable that had the information. It's a good question because the CIA station chief reports to Washington that it was a planned terror attack in 24 hours. If somebody in Washington read that cable, then they purposefully went out and were telling lies. So the AP is asking in their story if anybody read the CIA cable, anybody at the regime, anybody in Washington. Now, stop and think about that for a minute.
Ed Morrissey here at Hot Air has a got a question. Let's parse that out for just a second. We've got the death of a US ambassador and three other Americans in the attack on the consulate, key area of the world. Wouldn't one of the first items to check be information from the CIA's station chief? If you're sitting in Washington, you're the president or you're his national security team, there's an attack, your ambassador's dead, your consulate is in flames, it's natural to assume that there's going to be some curiosity at the highest levels of the administration to explain this. And indeed there was an explanation.
It was a CIA cable. And the AP, in its story, even asks if anybody in Washington even read the CIA cable because what the administration said was so different than what the CIA cable said. This is really stunning stuff here. Not to treat you like second graders, but let me run through this again. You have the attack. Within 24 hours both the State Department and the CIA report that it was a terror attack premeditated and preplanned.
Within that 24 hours, the CIA sends a cable to Washington, probably to the director of CIA and to the White House, the national security team, explaining that this was a terror attack. They have evidence, and it turned out the State Department had a video. It was not spontaneous. It was not a protest. Within 24 hours, the CIA had told the White House. The White House NEVER told that story.
The White House concocted first a protest that was ragtag, that stemmed from... In fact, what they said was that the protest was inspired by what was going on at the Cairo embassy on the same day. Then three days later, two days after the State Department and the CIA had reported what really happened -- three days later -- then they start with the lie about the video. But they had in their hands after the first day, the CIA station chief explanation and the State Department explanation.
They had two different sources for what really happened, and for over a week they lied. Every administration figure that went on television -- from the president on down to Susan Rice, to Jay Carney in the White House pressroom, to the president at the UN -- lied about this being the result of a video. And the point of all this is, again... Pardon me for being redundant here, but I just have to drill this home.
CIA and the State Department, within 24 hours, had sent the truth of what happened to the White House. The AP is being generous when they ask: Did anybody in Washington read what the CIA said? Because what the White House and the administration was saying bore no resemblance to the truth. AP didn't know it at the time. Nobody knew it. We were all going on the basis that it was a video.
That's the story that's out there. Now after the fact when everything's known, the AP is wondering: Did Obama read this? Did anybody read the CIA? They can't get their arms around the fact that Obama purposefully lied, so they're concocting this possibility. "You know what? Maybe they just didn't see it." That's why when the AP wonders when anybody read the CIA cable with the information...