Obama’s ‘Blame the Video’ Fraud Started in Cairo, Not Benghazi
by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
May 3, 2014
The e-mail revelations and the Obama administration's lies
Here is the main point: The rioting at the American embassy in Cairo was not about the anti-Muslim video. As argued here repeatedly (see here and here), the Obama administration's "Blame the Video" story was a fraudulent explanation for the September 11, 2012, rioting in Cairo every bit as much as it was a fraudulent explanation for the massacre in Benghazi several hours later.
We'll come back to that because, once you grasp this well-hidden fact, the Obama administration's derelictions of duty in connection with Benghazi become much easier to see. But let's begin with Jay Carney's performance in Wednesday's exchange with the White House press corps, a new low in insulting the intelligence of the American people.
Mr. Carney was grilled about just-released e-mails that corroborate what many of us have been arguing all along: "Blame the Video" was an Obama-administration-crafted lie, through and through. It was intended, in the stretch run of the 2012 campaign, to obscure the facts that (a) the president's foreign policy of empowering Islamic supremacists contributed directly and materially to the Benghazi massacre; (b) the president's reckless stationing of American government personnel in Benghazi and his shocking failure to provide sufficient protection for them were driven by a political-campaign imperative to portray the Obama Libya policy as a success - and, again, they invited the jihadist violence that killed our ambassador and three other Americans; and (c) far from being "decimated," as the president repeatedly claimed during the campaign (and continued to claim even after the September 11 violence in Egypt and Libya), al-Qaeda and its allied jihadists remained a driving force of anti-American violence in Muslim countries - indeed, they had been strengthened by the president's pro-Islamist policies.
The explosive e-mails that have surfaced thanks to the perseverance of Judicial Watch make explicit what has long been obvious: Susan Rice, the president's confidant and ambassador to the U.N., was strategically chosen to peddle the administration's "Blame the Video" fairy tale to the American people in appearances on five different national television broadcasts the Sunday after the massacre. She was coached about what to say by other members of the president's inner circle.
One of the e-mails refers expressly to a "prep call" that Ambassador Rice had with several administration officials on late Saturday afternoon right before her Sunday-show appearances. The tangled web of deception spun by the administration has previously included an effort to distance the White House (i.e., the president) from Rice's mendacious TV performances. Thus, Carney was in the unenviable position Wednesday of trying to explain the "prep call" e-mail, as well as other messages that illuminate the Obama White House's deep involvement in coaching Rice. The e-mails manifest that Rice's performances were campaign appearances, not the good-faith effort of a public official to inform the American people about an act of war against our country. Her instructions were "To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy"; and "To reinforce the President and Administration's strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges" (emphasis added).
Carney risibly claimed that the "prep call" was "not about Benghazi." Instead, according to him, it was "about the protests around the Muslim world."
Two points must be made about this.
The first involves the administration's blatant lying. Benghazi was the only reason Rice was going on the Sunday shows. If the massacre had not happened, there would not have been an extraordinary administration offering of one top Obama official to five different national television networks to address a calamity that had happened a few days before.
Moreover, as is well known to anyone who has ever been involved in government presentations to the media, to Congress, to courts, and to other fact-finding bodies, the official who will be doing the presentation is put through a "murder board" preparation process. This is a freewheeling session in which the questions likely to be asked at the presentation are posed, and potential answers - especially to tough questions - are proposed, discussed, and massaged. The suggestion that Rice, less than 24 hours before being grilled by high-profile media figures, was being prepped on something totally separate and apart from the incident that was the sole reason for her appearance is so farfetched it is amazing that Carney thought he could make it fly.
The second point brings us full circle to Egypt.
Why would Carney claim, with a straight face, that Rice was being prepped "about protests around the Muslim world"? Because, other than Benghazi, the "protest around the Muslim world" that Americans know about is the rioting (not "protest," rioting) at the U.S. embassy in Cairo a few hours before the Benghazi siege. When Benghazi comes up, the administration - President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, Jay Carney, et al. - loves to talk about the Cairo "protests." Why? Because the media, and thus the public, have bought hook, line, and sinker the fraudulent claim that those "protests" were over the anti-Muslim video. Obama & Co. shrewdly calculate that if you buy "Blame the Video" as the explanation for Cairo, it becomes much more plausible that you will accept "Blame the Video" as the explanation for Benghazi - or, at the very least, you will give Obama officials the benefit of the doubt that they could truly have believed the video triggered Benghazi, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary.
You see, the Benghazi fraud hinges on the success of the Cairo fraud. If you are hoodwinked by the latter, they have a much better chance of getting away with the former.
But "Blame the Video" is every bit as much a deception when it comes to Cairo.
Thanks to President Obama's policy of supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic supremacists in Egypt, post-Mubarak Cairo became a very hospitable place for jihadists. That included al-Qaeda leaders, such as Mohammed Zawahiri, brother of al-Qaeda emir Ayman Zawahiri; and leaders of Gama'at al-Islamia (the Islamic Group), the terrorist organization led by the Blind Sheikh - Omar Abdel Rahman, the terrorist I convicted in 1995 for running the jihadist cell that bombed the World Trade Center and plotted to bomb other New York City landmarks.
In the weeks before September 11, 2012, these jihadists plotted to attack the U.S. embassy in Cairo. In fact, the Blind Sheikh's son threatened a 1979 Iran-style raid on the embassy: Americans would be taken hostage to ransom for the Blind Sheikh's release from American prison (he is serving a life sentence). Other jihadists threatened to burn the embassy to the ground - a threat that was reported in the Egyptian press the day before the September 11 "protests."
The State Department knew there was going to be trouble at the embassy on September 11, the eleventh anniversary of al-Qaeda's mass-murder of nearly 3,000 Americans. It was well known that things could get very ugly. When they did, it would become very obvious to Americans that President Obama had not "decimated" al-Qaeda as he was claiming on the campaign trail. Even worse, it would be painfully evident that his pro-Muslim Brotherhood policies had actually enhanced al-Qaeda's capacity to attack the United States in Egypt.
The State Department also knew about the obscure anti-Muslim video. Few Egyptians, if any, had seen or heard about it, but it had been denounced by the Grand Mufti in Cairo on September 9. Still, the stir it caused was minor, at best. As Tom Joscelyn has elaborated, the Cairo rioting was driven by the jihadists who were agitating for the Blind Sheikh's release and who had been threatening for weeks to raid and torch our embassy. And indeed, they did storm it, replace the American flag with the jihadist black flag, and set fires around the embassy complex.
Nevertheless, before the rioting began but when they knew there was going to be trouble, State Department officials at the embassy began tweeting out condemnations of the video while ignoring the real sources of the threat: the resurgence of jihadists in Muslim Brotherhood-governed Egypt, the continuing demand for the Blind Sheikh's release (which underscored the jihadists' influence), and the very real danger that jihadists would attack the embassy (which demonstrated that al-Qaeda was anything but "decimated").
The transparent purpose of the State Department's shrieking over the video was to create the illusion that any security problems at the embassy (violent rioting minimized as mere "protests") were attributable to the anti-Muslim video, not to President Obama's policies and patent failure to quell al-Qaeda.
Because there was a kernel of truth to the video story, and because the American media have abdicated their responsibility to report the predominant causes of anti-Americanism in Egypt, journalists and the public have uncritically accepted the notion - a false notion - that the video caused the Cairo rioting. That acceptance is key to the administration's "Blame the Video" farce in connection with the lethal attack in Benghazi.
At about 10 p.m. Washington time on the night of September 11 - after they knew our ambassador to Libya had been murdered and while the siege of Benghazi still raged - Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama spoke on the telephone. Shortly afterwards, the State Department issued a statement from Secretary Clinton blaming the video for the atrocity in Benghazi. That was the beginning of the fraud's Benghazi phase - the phase Susan Rice was prepped to peddle on nationwide television. But it wasn't the beginning of the fraud.
Secretary Clinton's minions at the State Department had started spinning the video fraud hours earlier, in Egypt. The sooner Americans grasp that, the sooner they will comprehend the breathtaking depth of the president's Benghazi cover-up.
A version of this piece previously appeared on National Review Online.