On October 24, 2012 I wrote a blog entry titled "Why Did Obama Lie?" In that essay I predicted the ultimate outcome of the Benghazi cover-up that was then in its infancy:
We will never know why the President ordered Susan Rice, the United Nations Secretary to outright lie on four Sunday Morning News Interviews, destroying her credibility forever.
We will never know why in the world Vice President Biden told such an involved fictional account of the information known to the administration, even recounting totally false dates, during the Vice Presidential Debate. Biden knew from day one. Why did he destroy any chance he might have had of becoming President?
Certainly the administration will never explain these lies and the bizarre and unnecessary cover-up of the facts. It's a mini-Watergate with no logical explanation.
We can only guess that the President was trying to place the blame elsewhere, on an obscure video maker, to avoid any direct blame that would harm his re-election chances. It just all seems so odd.
President Obama wins re-election the Main Stream Media will then investigate and ask these same questions. If he loses it will fall upon a disgruntled staffer to reveal the truth. But either way, Mr. President, the truth will come out.But this week the dominoes all began to fall. As I predicted the Main Stream Media has turned on Obama for the very lies they helped his cover-up before the election. First CBS News. Then ABC News. Now everyone.
Mark Mardell, the North American Editor for BBC News probably summed it up best in his article: After Benghazi revelations, heads will roll
There's new evidence, obtained by ABC, that the Obama administration did deliberately purge references to "terrorism" from accounts of the attack on the Benghazi diplomatic mission, which killed four people including the US ambassador to Libya.
Conservatives have long maintained that the administration deliberately suppressed the truth about the attacks.
This is the first hard evidence that the state department did ask for changes to the CIA's original assessment.
Specifically, they wanted references to previous warnings deleted and this sentence removed: "We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa'ida participated in the attack."
There's little doubt in my mind that this will haunt Hillary Clinton if she decides to run for president, unless she executes some pretty fancy footwork.State department spokesperson Victoria Nuland is directly implicated, and the fingerprints of senior White House aides Ben Rhodes and Jay Carney are there as well.
In the interests of full disclosure I have to say I have not in the past been persuaded that allegations of a cover-up were a big deal. It seemed to me a partisan attack based on very little
But the evidence is there in black and white, unless we doubt the documents obtained by ABC, which I don't..
This is now very serious, and I suspect heads will roll. The White House will be on the defensive for a while.