Who Will Be Held Accountable for Benghazi?
November 3, 2012 • 10:05AM

As Lyndon LaRouche and Jeff Steinberg at the National Press Club event were unmasking President Barack Obama's documented complicity in the security-stripping and the lying cover-up surrounding the murder of four Americans at the Benghazi consulate on Sept. 11, there was a sharp intensification of the public finger-pointing "blame-game" among various institutions of government, major media, and others. As the clock ticks down to the election, and pressure mounts for Obama to come clean, there is also intense negotiating and blackmail going on behind the scenes, as to whom they will try to force to take the fall for the Nero-in-Chief.

Much of the latest finger-pointing targets Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, but the battle has by no means been decided. In fact, many of the self-serving revelations and controlled leaks have the potential to completely backfire, since they generally amplify the deceit that Obama and his minions have carried out from the outset. To wit:

* A David Ignatius column in the Washington Post, datelined Nov. 1, presents a print-out from "a senior intelligence official" of a CIA timeline of events in Benghazi, which was released to a number of reporters. Ignatius's bottom line: "While there were multiple errors that led to the final tragedy, there's no evidence that the White House or CIA leadership deliberately delayed or impeded rescue efforts." Among the cherry-picked new "facts" released are that the drone that was flying over the consulate was unarmed, and therefore could not knock out the attacking mortars; and that it is not true, as some press have reported, that former Navy Seal Ty Woods had "laser-painted" the enemy mortar location, while calling for air support to take it out.

* A Nov. 2 Washington Post article by Greg Miller, based on the same CIA chronology, presents pretty much the same information as the Ignatius column. It notes that the decision to release the new account five days before the elections "is likely to be regarded with suspicion, particularly among Republicans," especially since "the information does not address the main source of political controversy surrounding the siege: the shifting assessment."

* A Daily Beast article by Eli Lake quotes Defense Department spokesman George Little blaming the State Department: "The State Department is responsible for assessing security at its diplomatic installations and for requesting support from other government agencies if they need it... There was no request from the Department of State to intervene militarily on the night of the attack." Besides pointing the finger at Hillary, the article tries to cover Obama's ass by noting that NSC spokesman Tommy Vietor said that Obama, while the attack was underway, told Defense Secretary Panetta and head of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Dempsey "to begin moving assets into the region to prepare for a range of contingencies."

* ABC's Jake Tapper writes that the Obama administration clearly has a strategy of "running out the clock until Election Day" without saying much about Benghazi, and only occasionally responding to individual items with a "drip-drip-drip" of information. For example, NSC spokesman Vietor has said that there was no real-time video of the attack being watched in the Situation Room, and also that "the White House didn't deny any requests for assistance. Period."

* Patrick Buchanan also targets Hillary heavily in an article published on WND. He focuses on the Aug. 16 Ambassador Stevens cable to State, saying the Benghazi consulate couldn't withstand a "coordinated attack" and needed security help, as well as the fact that State "was following the Benghazi assault in real time." But Buchanan does raise questions about other parts of the Obama administration as well: "Who, then, did refuse to send help? Who did give the orders to 'stand down?'... When did Obama learn that State was following the Benghazi attack in real time... The CIA had to know all this. Did Tom Donilon of the NSC not know it? Did he not tell the president? Five days after Benghazi, Susan Rice went on five national TV shows to say the attack was a spontaneous protest over an anti-Muslim video. Did the president not know she was talking nonsense? Could he himself have still been clueless about what went on in Benghazi?"

A senior U.S. intelligence source confirmed that the CIA briefing on Thursday night was intended to give further cover to President Obama, but that it was not at all successful. In fact, the detailed account of CIA rescue efforts makes clear that it was known, all along, that the attack on the consulate and the CIA annex was a premeditated heavily armed terror attack, not a spontaneous demonstration. If anything, the CIA "new" information just makes the lies of Susan Rice and Obama himself all the more flagrant.