Earlier, I wrote about how the U.S. government had scapegoated free speech for the terrorist attacks in Libya, claiming that the attacks were an outgrowth of "spontaneous" protests over an obscure, amateurishly-produced film in the U.S. that depicted Mohammed negatively -- when in fact, there were no protests at all against the video that day in Benghazi, the city in Libya where the U.S. consulate was attacked. (The attack was by terrorists with ties to Al Qaeda, not protesters of any kind.)
As I have explained in The Washington Post and elsewhere, the Obama administration has sought to restrict free speech on the grounds that it constitutes, or incites, discrimination. That would severely undermine freedom of speech, because a vast array of speech; employment, land use-, housing-, or factory-location decisions; and exercises of freedom of association, can be depicted as being intentionally or unintentionally discriminatory (i.e., "disparate impact") by government officials (and also because wackos can claim that even perfectly legitimate speech incited them to commit wrongdoing).
Now, there are reports that high-ranking U.S. government officials knew about the attack in Benghazi in real time, and refused to help the people under attack at the Consulate, even though the U.S. had two drones and an AC-130 gunship in the region, and targets painted on the attackers in Benghazi, and there was time to intervene before the consulate was overrun (the Consulate's grossly outnumbered defenders apparently managed to kill many of the attackers, holding them off for a substantial period of time). If this is true, there was serious governmental incompetence at the highest levels in responding to the attack -- giving the Obama administration an additional incentive to try to deflect blame to the filmmaker who made the "Innocence of Muslims" video.
Here are links to some of those reports:
Early briefing on Libya strike focused on Al Qaeda, before story changed to blame video (Fox News)
ALLARD: Obama knew about the attack, ignored three requests for help. (Washington Times)
Benghazi attack: Urgent call for military help ‘was denied by chain of command.’ (Christian Science Monitor)
“The stunning part of the story is that Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty killed 60 of the attacking force. Once the compound was overrun, the attackers were incensed to discover that just two men had inflicted so much death and destruction.”
Obama needs to come clean on Benghazi. (Jennifer Rubin, Washington Post): “The Benghazi debacle has three parts: how we neglected security while al-Qaeda was building a presence in Libya; whether the administration tried to mislead the public as to the nature of the attack; and now whether the administration denied pleas for help from operatives on the ground at the consulate.”
False Military Doctrine And The Benghazi Assault. (Captain's Journal): “The notion" peddled by the Obama Administration that the U.S. didn't respond to the attack while it was occurring because "we don’t send our forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on is patently absurd and false. Simply said, it’s a lie. We deploy Army Rangers to take control of air fields and landing zones in potentially hostile environments, for which we do not know all of the desired information; we deploy Marine infantry into situations of potentially unknown threats all of the time all over the globe; each and every time a patrol left the outpost at the Korengal in Afghanistan, they were deploying into potentially deadly situations without specific and detailed knowledge of the situation."
McCain Suggests Response To Benghazi Attack Was Worse Than Watergate. (Slate): “It is now the worst cover-up or incompetence I have ever observed in my life,” said Senator McCain.
Benghazi: That Was Then, and This Is Now.“It is hard to imagine how any newspaper could ignore, or even try to downplay, a story of this magnitude. Yet, if you rely on the New York Times for information, you know little about the battle of Benghazi, and nothing at all about the explosive account that emerged on Friday, fueled in part by the anger of the father of one of the dead American operatives.”
U.S. Had Two Drones, AC-130 Gunship, and Targets Painted in #Benghazi: “Yesterday the CIA said they didn’t say no to a rescue mission for Ambassador Stevens and other Americans under attack. Today the White House said it wasn’t Obama.”
VIDEO: Obama Ducks Questions On Why Help Wasn’t Sent To Benghazi.“It sure is odd how thoroughly uninformed he seems to have been about what was happening in Libya, which is supposed to be a key part of his reelection foreign-policy credentials.”
Benghazi bungle requires act of urgent political hygiene (National Review):
“Within minutes of the first bullet being fired, the White House knew these heroes would be slaughtered if immediate air support was denied,” said Ty Woods’ father, Charles. “In less than an hour, the perimeters could have been secured, and American lives could have been saved. After seven hours fighting numerically superior forces, my son’s life was sacrificed because of the White House’s decision.”
Why would Obama and Biden do such a thing? Because to launch a military operation against an al-Qaida affiliate on the anniversary of 9/11 would have exposed the hollowness of their boast through convention week and the days thereafter – that Osama was dead, and al-Qaida was finished. And so Ty Woods, Glen Doherty, Sean Smith and Chris Stevens were left to die, and a decision taken to blame an entirely irrelevant video and, as Secretary Clinton threatened, “have that person arrested.” And, in the weeks that followed, the government of the United States lied to its own citizens as thoroughly and energetically as any totalitarian state, complete with the midnight knock-on-the-door from not-so-secret policemen sent to haul the designated fall guy into custody.
This goes far beyond the instinctive secretiveness to which even democratic governments are prone. The Obama administration created a wholly fictional storyline, and devoted its full resources to maintaining it.