* The real reason why POTUS couldn't make an early call of "terrorism"? Perhaps because the Sept. 11th pre-planned military raid on the U.S. diplomatic consulate in Benghazi, Libya, which resulted in the loss of four American lives, was an inside job. Just another "conspiracy theory"? Read this before you decide.
AFTER-ACTION REPORT Tuesday morning, Oct. 23, 2012: Debate moderator Bob Schieffer of CBS News gave both presidential candidates an opportunity to litigate the handling of the Sept. 11th Benghazi consulate attack by making it his opening question. President Obama, and then Mitt Romney, ducked the question -- and Schieffer declined to follow up. I believe the analysis below, written three days before the debate, helps explain why both candidates chose not to "go there." A spokesperson for the Romney camp told CBS News that their man didn't press the issue because the facts were still unclear. Funny, that didn't stop him from making a major issue of Benghazi just minutes after the incident was confirmed by U.S. officials....
As of Friday, Oct. 19, three days before the final presidential debate between President Obama and Mitt Romney, it would appear the GOP challenger is gaining traction on what could be the deciding factor in the Nov. 6th election -- whether the Obama administration ignored pleas for more security at its diplomatic outposts in Libya, and attempted to cover for its failure to act by downplaying what clearly was a pre-planned military operation timed to occur on the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.
But President Obama may have an ace up his sleeve if he can show -- or even strongly imply -- that word of the fatal attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya was leaked to the Romney camp before the U.S. had officially confirmed the deaths four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya.
Secretary of State Clinton confirmed the deaths of Libya Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others in a statement delivered at 10:08pm EDT. Just 17 minutes later, the Romney campaign released its own brief statement, a harsh condemnation of the Obama administration, calling it "disgraceful that the Obama Administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”
That statement, taking blatant political advantage of a foreign policy crisis, also was patently untrue. Secretary Clinton did say that "some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet" -- an amateurish anti-Muslim video posted on YouTube. And she did add that the U.S. "deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others." But in no way did she "sympathize with those who waged the attacks," as the Romney statement had claimed.
Romney also got it wrong by stating that an initial State Department condemnation of inflammatory anti-Muslim internet rants, from the American embassy in Cairo, came after the Benghazi attack. In fact, that initial State Department condemnation of anti-Muslim rhetoric came about ten hours before the consulate attack -- an attempt to quell violence ostensibly spawned by the YouTube video.
Was the Romney camp so quick to capitalize on the Benghazi attack because it knew the attack was coming -- or because it had received advance word from inside sources that at least one American had died in the attack? The Romney statement issued just 17 minutes after Sec. Clinton's confirmation of multiple American fatalities specifically referenced "the death of an American consulate worker." A single American, not more than one. Curious, indeed.
If the Romney camp was indeed tipped off to the fatal attack -- either before it happened or before the fatalities were confirmed by Sec. Clinton -- it could be an indication that someone within the U.S. security establishment had committed what used to be referred to as a act of sedition? If that is what happened here (and we do not yet know the full story) that would constitute a security breach of major proportions, a treasonous act motivated by geopolitical gamesmanship.
Perhaps THAT is why President Obama made only an oblique reference to "acts of terror" in a Rose Garden statement the morning after the Sept. 11th attack. And for two weeks thereafter, administration spokespeople, including U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and White House press secretary Jay Carney, refused to state outright that the Benghazi attack was "terrorism" -- instead sticking to the line that the incident was believed to have been sparked by that anti-Muslim video produced in Hollywood and uploaded to YouTube.
Obama and his administration repeatedly vowed to investigate what really happened in Benghazi, and why -- and significantly, in my opinion, the President called in the FBI, not military intelligence or the Central Intelligence Agency, to conduct the administration's primary investigation on the ground.
Tellingly, perhaps, President Obama used the term "inside job" at a Sept. 21st political rally in Northern Virginia, an apparent reference to his statement the day before in an interview on the Spanish network Univision that Washington "can't be changed from the inside."
Obama's Univision comment had prompted Romney to deride Obama for an inability to effect political change -- Romney vowing, "I will change Washington. I will get the job done from the inside."
Obama delivered this response to Romney's vow at that Virginia political rally:
"What kind of inside job is he talking about? We don't want an inside job in Washington. We want change in Washington."
While no media commentator picked up on Obama's usage of the term "inside job," with its sinister connotations, I think I may have heard Obama's "neurolinguistic programming" meme loud and clear.
President Obama, in a mostly somber interview Thursday night, Oct. 18, with The Daily Show's Jon Stewart, repeated his pledge to get to the bottom of what really happened in Benghazi. That appearance provoked derision from conservative media pundits, in part because Obama picked up on Stewart's use of the term "optimal" when he asked Obama if the American people were sufficiently informed about the facts of the Benghazi attack. Obama said this, as quoted on the Politico.com website:
"Every piece of information that we get, as we got it, we laid it out to the American people. The picture eventually gets fully filled in.... Here’s what I’ll say. When four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal. We’re going to fix it. All of it."
At first blush, Obama's response seemed inadequate. After all, it WAS a terrorist attack, the administration finally acknowledged.
Or WAS It? What if the "terrorists" were directed by covert operatives on a mission with a political overtones motivated by domestic politics -- what the spooks term a "false flag attack" -- intended to influence domestic politics in America on the eve of a presidential election?
And I repeat: What if the Romney camp knew something was coming -- even if their advance knowledge was limited to the fact that the attack on the American consulate resulted in the loss of life?
Just as the President's critics are pointing out on the eve of the third and final debate -- devoted to foreign policy -- this story is far from over. But maybe not for the reasons that Obama's critics think.
Remember the Iranian hostage crisis, in which the American hostages were released only after President Reagan officially took office on January 20th, 1980 -- the result of a secret deal that was negotiated during the run-up to the election in which Reagan defeated Democrat Jimmy Carter.
At a bare minimum, this could be a 21st century remake of such political intrigue. But this time, the covert action could extend much, much deeper -- perhaps even explaining why, I have concluded, President Obama's performance in the first debate was purposefully degraded by a no-touch "neuromodulation" attack via the classified cell tower electromagnetic weapon grid I first exposed three years ago. See my article, here:
So debate watchers, please stand by: Unless President Obama is again debilitated with an induced "brain fog" during Monday night's debate session, he just may be about to uncork an even bigger "October Surprise" than the one that may have been brewed up by his political and ideological enemies within.
FOR MORE OF VIC LIVINGSTON'S EXCLUSIVE REPORTING: