Storyteller in Chief (Part I of III)

Teachable moments like this are rare. When they do come along, it is important to capitalize on them. I will be taking my time to ensure this event is given the attention that it deserves. I anticipate a three part series to explore the details of this event.

As President Obama has shown and explained, he sees himself as a great storyteller. Either by the significant portions of his two books being largely embellished or his conclusions about the auto-bailout that he just “didn’t do good enough of a job selling Americans on the auto-bailout”. It seems that to the President, we are not concerned about the economy, general US decline in the world view, or the crushing debt. To President Obama, all we really want is a good story. Let’s discuss this most recent storytelling effort surrounding the attack on the US Embassy in Benghazi, Libya.

On  Tuesday September 11th, the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks, the US Embassy in Benghazi, Libya was assaulted. The politicking and media spin surrounding this event is outrageous and apparent. The assault on the US Embassy in Libya has focused the American people’s eyes on the President’s foreign policy. The mainstream media and the rest of Barack Obama’s re-election campaign have recognized the negative impact this event could have on the President’s re-election and have concentrated all efforts to defend him.

Within hours of the attack, the media narrative had begun to unfold. The first attempt to discern the motivation for this attack has skipped entirely over the obvious onto the obscure. For most of Tuesday, media outlets continued to “report” that a YouTube video uploaded in July which denounces Islam. This movie was produced in the United States, where freedom of speech is a constitutionally protected right (or at least it was … as we will discuss later). This asinine assertion that a YouTube happened to create widespread protests and a deadly attack in Libya is paper thin. We are talking about the same people who celebrated and paraded through the streets just 11 years prior. However, with the President’s re-election hopes at stake, all attempts must be made to distance the President from the event. Using a constitutionally protected expression of one American’s views seems to be a fair scapegoat.

To further the selection of the scapegoat, the White House Press Secretary Jay Carney helped prop up the media spin.

The next piece of wool that is attempting to be pulled over American eyes is such that the attack in Libya was ‘spontaneous’ and the US had no warning. Apparently one of the most historic dates in recent American history isn’t enough to raise security interest, but that point aside might I ask ‘what is spontaneous about mortars and rocket-propelled grenades?’. Is this standard fare for a spontaneous protest or does this omitted detail reek of militaristic violence? Four hundred “protestors” appeared at the US Embassy and enacted a planned military strike against a US target they knew to be weak. This attack started simultaneously from three separate directions with two waves of RPG and mortar fire, as reported by Libyan security guards. To further enforce the notion that this assault was planned the President of Libya, Mohammed el-Megarif, was interviewed by NPR.

Megarif says that over the past few months, foreigners took advantage of the security vacuum and flowed into the country from Mali and Algeria. I ask if this attack was over an anti-Muslim film that sparked violent protests across the Muslim world. He shakes his head.“The idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous,” he says. “We firmly believe that this was a precalculated, preplanned attack that was carried out specifically to attack the U.S. Consulate.”

This statement coming from a man who knows a few things about terrorism directly opposes the stance of the President and his re-election committee. The Libyan President spoke of a ‘security vacuum’ which also flies in the face of Obama’s claim that the US had no ‘actionable intelligence’ related to US diplomats in Libya. As if the anniversary of the WTC terrorist attacks were not enough to put Americans on point in the Middle East, three days prior to the embassy attack, a local security official met with the US diplomats to discuss the deteriorating security situation. In addition to degrading security of the country, the facility that the US Ambassador, Chris Stevens, was located at was designated as a ‘interim facility’ which did not warrant the ’embassy-level’ security detail. This facility lacked bulletproof glass, reinforced doors, and other common protection measures in place at ‘permanent’ embassies. Why Chris Stevens even at this unsecured facility on the 11th anniversary of 9/11 and not at the fortified US Embassy in Tripoli? Better question being, how did the men who assaulted the embassy in Benghazi know?

This mob of four hundred men stormed the building and conquered it’s inadequate defenses. It’s at this point that the US Government lost contact with its Ambassador and could not account for his location for ten hours.  After learning of his brutal murder, the President issued an emotionless, obligatory statement to denounce the attack. It was the statement from Secretary of State Hilary Clinton that starkly contrasts the actual events, that is truly shocking. Clinton asserts that Libyans carried Ambassador Chris Stevens’ body to the hospital, where he was unable to be revived and pronounced dead. Carried to the hospital?! By carried, perhaps she means dragged through the streets where people could take photographs on the cell phones and cheer as his body passes by.  However, the facts don’t get in the way when the Left is trying to tell you the story.

In Part II we will examine the apology issued by the US Embassy in Libya as a result of the attacks and how Presidential candidate Mitt Romney responded this apology on behalf of America for being American.

-Dean Jones