Obama Goes After Putin- With Self-indictment on Benghazi?

In the wake of the assault on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012, during which 4 Americans lost their lives, including our Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens, President Obama and his administration repeatedly denied that they knew the attack was pre-planned and deliberate until days or weeks after it occurred. Republicans argued that if you considered the facts, that simply couldn't be true. They claimed that the attackers possessed training and skill not found in "spontaneous" protests, and that the weapons used were military in nature, pointing toward connections to terrorism in some form or another. When Obama and his surrogates vilified Republicans for claiming to know what happened with "no evidence" to back up their claims, the media was quick as ever to jump to the President's defense. It wasn't enough proof that testimony from those on the ground during the 7 hour attack backed the GOP's claims. The White House insisted, and indeed insists to this day that they had no way of knowing in the immediate aftermath that the attack on Benghazi was anything more than a spontaneous protest. Republicans charged that their story didn't jive with the facts and claimed the White House was distorting facts to keep from taking a significant political hit six weeks out from a presidential election. One piece of evidence cited to back those claims is the fact that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton felt there was enough evidence, at 10:00 PM the night of the attack, to issue a press release blaming an anti-muslim internet video for the Benghazi attack, a sentiment that was repeated by the White House countless times for at least two weeks, most notably by then-Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice, who made the claim on 5 different Sunday news programs a full 5 days after the attack took place. The premise of citing this evidence was, put simply, "If you didn't have enough evidence for 2 weeks to confirm the attack was an act of terrorism, then how could you have enough evidence to blame the video?" Following the pattern of circular reasoning that has become the hallmark of the Obama administration, they insisted "The video sparked other protests in the region, so we assumed it sparked this one too." That argument has remained unchanged for nearly 20 months. President Obama and the entire administration insist that there was no reason for them to assume the Benghazi attack was any different from the protests occurring throughout the region at the time, despite the testament of commanders and personnel on the ground that confirmed the presence and use of military style weapons, and highly trained and skilled attackers, all of which were highly unlikely to be a product of a "spontaneous protest".

Fast forward to May 2, 2014. After the Russian annexation of the Crimea peninsula in Ukraine, President Obama is locked in a nose to nose game of geopolitical chess with Russian President Vladimir Putin, and he's losing. Putin continues to insist that the insurgency wreaking havoc on eastern Ukraine is the result of spontaneous actions from Ukrainian civilians. Obama is in the rose garden taking questions about Ukraine from reporters, when he says this:

“THE NOTION THAT THIS IS SOME SPONTANEOUS UPRISING IN EASTERN UKRAINE IS BELIED BY ALL THE EVIDENCE OF WELL ORGANIZED, TRAINED ARMED MILITIAS WITH A CAPACITY TO SHOOT DOWN HELICOPTERS – GENERALLY LOCAL PROTESTERS DON’T POSSESS THAT CAPACITY OF SURFACE TO AIR MISSLES OR WHATEVER WEAPONS WERE USED TO SHOOT DOWN HELICOPTERS.”

Well Mr. President, it would seem that you feel the skill of the attackers and the type of weapons used are plenty of evidence to condemn Mr. Putin on Ukraine. So why then is it not enough to condemn your administration on Benghazi?  Consider this statement in the context of this list if evidence (just a sample of key evidence):

-Ms. Clinton's press release blaming the internet video at 10:07 PM on the night of the attack

-The testimony of witnesses about the skill of the attackers and the presence of military weapons

-The statement last month from former Deputy Director of the CIA Michael Morrell that the internet video "was not something the analysts had attributed this attack to"

-The newly released email written by White House official Ben Rhodes on September 14, 2012 (3 days after the attack while the initial investigation was still ongoing) entitled "RE: PREP Call with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 pm ET," which discusses blaming the video for the attack in Benghazi. Indeed two of the stated goals of this prep call 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." By the way, this email was almost completely redacted when first released to Congress, and it took a court order to make the document public.

Taken individually, this evidence is troubling. Taken together, it becomes patently clear that the Obama administration chose from the outset of this tragic situation to play politics rather than get to the truth and bring those responsible to justice. Had the media been as fervent in their scrutiny of this situation as they were during Watergate, Iran Contra, or even Abu Ghraib, we would have the answers by now, the White House's actions would be old news, and our efforts would be focused on bringing the perpetrators of this attack to justice. The White House failed us, the administration failed us, and most of the press failed us as well. We can only hope the now imminent appointment of a select committee to investigate the attack will bring swift answers and some closure for the families of the fallen: Ambassador Chris Stevens,  Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods.