Obama’s Letterman Appearance Post-Benghazi Attack
Exactly a week after the attack on Benghazi, President Barack Obama made an appearance on David Letterman’s “Late Show.” This was on September 18, 2012, a time marked by the tragic deaths of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others, which placed immense pressure on the Obama administration to clarify the events surrounding the attack. With the election looming just around the corner, the narrative proposed by the administration—that the violence was a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Muslim video—was already facing skepticism.
People today tend to feel everything is documented, yet the political memory can be, well, rather fragile.
So, naturally, Obama chose Letterman for this discussion.
It was quite a defining moment in AJ Rice’s recent endeavors. A conversation took place with Drew Thomas Allen, who wrote “Clinton’s Hoax, Obama’s Coup: The Declassified Story of Trump and Russia’s Paranoia.” Allen argues that the political turmoil around Donald Trump that exploded in 2016 has roots far deeper, going back to the Obama administration, Benghazi, and the intelligence community’s actions.
The bizarre part of this story, however, comes from some of Allen’s research. He discovered that Obama’s Letterman appearance was referenced in documents related to the Benghazi investigation. Yet, locating the actual interviews proved challenging. It appears that only a fragment of the September 18 interview is easily accessible online, particularly the part where President Obama talked about Benghazi—this segment is notably elusive.
Rice mentions that numerous Letterman interviews from that period are available online, making the absence of this particular one stand out.
What remains unclear is who removed this footage, why it’s missing, and whether these actions were intentional. Television archives can be quite messy. Sometimes, clips simply vanish for ordinary reasons as rights change. Rice and Allen argue that rather than jumping to conspiracy theories, a thorough effort should be made to acquire complete copies or transcripts.
This is a sensible approach. Yet, a few important questions linger. Why is it so hard to find a key presidential interview about Benghazi?
Rice presents a compelling theory. The interview probably went something like, “There’s a hole in my memory.”
Importance of Political Narratives
This saying echoes the themes presented in George Orwell’s “1984.” In the book, Winston Smith works to rework old records so that yesterday’s truth aligns with today’s political messaging. Historical accuracy ends up in the ‘memory hole.’
This idea resonates because political stories become dominant narratives with shockingly quick speed. Politicians speak, media outlets broadcast it, newspapers elevate the messages, and soon, millions share the recollections—without always recalling the initial context.
Fast forward years later, the interpretation persists, but locating the original sources becomes increasingly complex.
This brings us back to Allen’s perspective on Benghazi, highlighting how President Obama campaigned on his terrorism record, especially following the killing of Osama bin Laden. However, just weeks before the election, the tragic killing of the ambassador became a significant political issue. The public discourse surrounding it and the various Congressional inquiries complicated the official narratives, intriguing Allen who encourages a deeper exploration of those events.
His book connects the dots from Benghazi to the Clintons, the FBI, the CIA, the Steele dossier, and to what has come to be known as Russiagate. It’s not required to accept all his conclusions to appreciate his fundamental challenge: go back to the original documents. Do not confuse prevalent interpretations with the original records.
Letterman, in this context, transcends merely being a footnote.
Rice suggests that historically, comedians have played the role of court jesters—those who could criticize authority without fear. Think of figures like Aristophanes or Molière, who wielded humor against those in power.
However, Rice notes that Letterman’s role seems different now. During Obama’s appearance, he wasn’t stepping into a venue brimming with hostility. Instead, he found himself in a congenial setting where he could handle political issues from a more comfortable perspective.
Is that critique too harsh? Maybe—every political landscape has its mix of supporters and critics. But ideally, if a comedian’s role is to question authority, that role shouldn’t fluctuate based on which party holds power.
Timing and Significance
This wasn’t just a casual chat about golf. The president appeared on a comedy show shortly after the deaths of three Americans, which included the U.S. ambassador, and amidst considerable pressure on his administration to explain the violent attack—and just before his reelection campaign ramped up.
Curiously, the parts of the interview deemed most politically pertinent are the hardest to find.
That should raise eyebrows among historians, journalists, and citizens alike—not spark conspiracy theories.
We are in an age where it seems everything is eternally recorded, yet the collective political memory can be delicate. Assertions can be lost over time; crucial context may fade. At the end of the day, what often remains is a simplified version of events that lingers in the public’s mind.
This illustrates why the Letterman episode warrants further scrutiny. It may not affirm Allen’s broader claims or prove intent to suppress information, yet it underscores the necessity for people to demand access to original evidence.
Was a complete interview ever captured? If it exists, why not publish the transcript? And if the content has truly vanished, isn’t that worth investigating?
Memory holes can lead to dire consequences. If the original source is lost, what persists is just someone’s interpretation of what supposedly happened.
