Things fall apart...

Congressional hearings are starting today. SoS Clinton, NID Katleen Sabyllis and various other high ranking officials are testifying behind closed doors to top members of congress. The story (that even I bought into initially) that a video caused a "spontaneous" protest in Benghazi, Libya is unraveling quicker than my prom date's formal wear.

The original story was simple - a movie degrading the Prophet Mohammad sparked protests outside the embassies in Cairo, Egypt and Benghazi, Libya. In the following days the knowledge of this movie spread, causing protests at US embassies from the Sudan to London.

On the morning of 9/11/12 the US embassy itself put out a statement condemning the You Tube video. A statement that reads almost like a pre-apology. That afternoon the attacks in Cairo began. That night the attacks in Benghazi occurred. On 9/12/12 White House spokesman Jay Carney explicitly described the attacks as not a response or protest to US policy, but a reprehensible, disgusting video. In the days immediately after the attacks the Secretary of State reiterated the fault of this video, also noting that it was the source of the spontaneous violence. She also described it as demeaning to Islam, horrible, and even cut commercials, now playing in Pakistan, reiterating that the US government had nothing to do with the video. National Intelligence Director Sabyllius followed suit, describing the video as "haneous" and identifying it as the source of unrest. UN Ambassador Susan Rice added that the video was "egregious", and made the rounds on all 5 Sunday morning talk shows asserting the administration line: "[the Benghazi incident] was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo, as a consequence of the video," and that after the protest outside the U.S. consulate gathered steam, "those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons." Even the President of the United States weighed in several times on this story line, " ...the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, but we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants." Just today the President was asked by a reporter at a Spanish language forum on Univision whether or not the attacks were linked to Al Qeada. He responded, “What we do know is that the natural protests that arose over the video were used by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests,” Asked if the timing of the Benghazi incident - the eleventh anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks - was simply a coincidence, a senior U.S. official said Monday "It is coincidental. All evidence we have points to this video being the spark of these events."

What's been clear the last 8 days is that the administration has had a storyline as their response that always includes three aspects.1) the video caused spontaneous protests/attacks. 2) the video was "despicable, haneous, and egregious." 3) the video is no excuse for the violence. And in that order.

There's a problem. Fox News (where I pulled the following), CNN, NBC, and CBS are now reporting various versions of the following:

"There was no protest and the attacks were not spontaneous," the [consulate] source said, adding the attack "was planned and had nothing to do with the movie." The source said the assault came with no warning at about 9:35 p.m. local time, and included fire from more than two locations. The assault included RPG's and mortar fire, and consisted of two waves. The account that the attack started suddenly backs up claims by a purported Libyan security guard who told McClatchy Newspapers late last week that the area was quiet before the attack. "There wasn't a single ant outside," said the unnamed guard, who was being treated in a hospital.

These were organised, planned attacks my friends. And there was no protest that preceeded them. Some believe the point was to kidnap the ambassador, perhaps to trade for an imprisoned militant. What is know now he was tortured the moments before his death.

It gets worse for the administration. On the very CBS show "Face the Nation" that UN Ambassador Rice adamantly pushed the administration line, that the attacks were a spontaneous result of protests over the video, the Libyan President said the government in Tripoli harbors "no doubt" that the Sept. 11, 2012 attack that killed U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans was "preplanned, predetermined." That bastion of Right Wing propaganda, CBS, later went on to report: Witnesses of last week’s deadly attack on a U.S. consulate in Libya have told CBS News that the alleged anti-American protest that U.S. officials say morphed into the assault never actually took place.

Wait, it gets worse.

In 2011, the New York Times reported that Sufyan Ben Qumu, who had helped finance the September 11, 2001 attacks was released from detention in 2007.  He was described by the New York Times as an “ally of sorts” of the US backed Libyan coalition during their April, 2011 push to overthrow Qaddafi. Reports are now surfacing that he helped plan and led the attacks on the American consulate in Benghazi.

As early as Wednsday Matthew Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, told the Senate Committe on Homeland Security and Governmental affairs, “I would say they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack." Furthermore, reports are indicating that the embassy Intel had warned for days that a 9/11 anniversary attack was in the works.

It's now been revealed that out of the 4 Americans killed (which of course included the US Ambassador) there were 2 Navy SEALS. Naturally most people, including me, concluded that they were part of the Ambassasdor's security detail. They were not. In fact they were ex SEALS, hired through a private security firm, charged with protecting the data services within the embassy. When the attacks happened they did what SEALS do - they fought back and attempted to get the ambassador clear of the building. This raises what is at the core of the controversy in my opinion - why did two private citizens feel compelled to protect the ambassador? Why was there not beefed up security on the anniversary of 9/11, especially personal security for the ambassador who was known to be on an Al Qeada hit list? Why was the embassy itself simply a convereted civilian home and not a fortress? Various anonymous Intel officials have intamated that the politics of having beefed up American boots on the ground didn't sit well with the president and his administration. What's becoming clear to me is that this You Tube video - 3 months old - served as a convenient way of explaining away how under protected the administration left our embassies due to political considerations. It was "spontaneous"after all, a surprise, how could we prepare for a movie igniting a sudden protest?

Allow me a conspiratorial moment. The administration makes the decision that they will not beef up security so as not to upset the political situation on the ground in these countries where an increased US military presence may cause offense. They know the attacks are possible though, so they have the embassy put out a statement condemning this You Tube video, before any attacks occur. Now, if the attacks come, they have a scape goat as to the cause - nothing's their fault.

Before I close this post I want to address something somewhat more fundamental. I have concluded the video was a scape goat, however, lets say the protests following Benghazi - after the little known video was made famous by the administration - were in fact because of the video, which is entirely possible. I noticed, perhaps you did too, that the statements from the highest levels of our government all included explicit adjectives of condemnation of the video. Not nearly as strong were their condemnations of the violence. Their statements essentially went, This is a haneous, awful, disgusting movie created by a "shadowy character" (the POTUS' words) ... but it doesn't excuse the violence.  In fact, the LA Times op-ed piece today likened any disparaging remarks, video, etc of the Prophet Muhammad to shouting "fire!" in a crowded movie theater. And that since it can lead to direct incitement of violence that perhaps it should be as illegal as the fire euphemism. Now just take a moment and think about this dynamic - these are presumably card carrying members of the ACLU, advocating suppression of the First Amendment because of religious considerations. Hillary Clinton gave a standing ovation at the conclusion of the Broadway play "The Book of Mormon", which takes searing shots at Latter Day Saints. There are countless movies that portray nuns, priests, and even the Pope as sadistic power hungry sociopaths, not to mention "art" displays of the Virgin Mary smeared in feces and the crucifix soaked in urine. Can you imagine if there were any violence, even a single window broken, by Mormons or Catholics? How would the LA Times op-ed read then?

The bottom line is no matter how awful this obscure movie is, it can be defended under the First Amendment, but the murder of four Americans can not be defended under any circumstance. So the fundamental question I want to ask is why the American Left (and by extension the Western Left) feel the need to coddle and excuse Muslim religious extremism?

I have a theory (of course).

Everything I know of what informed the President's formative years tells me that he came to office believing that America had a lot to apologize for. "For the tension between the U.S. and the Muslim world has been fed by colonialism and the Cold War.", he said in his June 2009  "New Beginning" speech in Cairo. This was his first big communication to the world as  the US President. There, he implicitly contrasted George W. Bush's emphasis on universal human rights by admitting that "America does not presume to know what is best for everyone." I believe that a man weened on Jeremiah Wright (listening to tapes on his headphones late into the night); a man influenced by Cass Sunstein and  Bill Ayres; a man mentored by avowed communist Frank Marshall Davis; a man who's father was a member of the communist party of Kenya; a man who's book is entitled Dreams From (not of ) My Father - implying they were dreams passed in to his ideology; that a man who readily stated in 2000 that the Constitution was a charter of negative liberties; a man whom has routinely proved he sees our founding document as an obstacle to overcome not adhered to; that this man feels the West in general, and the United States in specific, gained its' position in the world illegitimately. And that quite frankly those whom we have oppressed - in this case the Muslim world - have a legitimate beef. We've been "takers", oppressors, exploiters, gluttons on the world stage and now we're simply getting our much deserved, long over due "come up-ins." That our chickens are coming home to roost. And I believe this notion permeates the entire hard Left of this nation. They find some odd connection with Muslim rage because they share a common disdain for American preeminence. 

And in the President's view he is not about to defend the indefensible - America.