The Truth About Benghazi
Please visit Robert's editorial sponsor.
POTUS is trying to cover up the facts about what really happened in Libya.
Politics, Accountability, and The Media in Benghazigate
As time goes on, more and more evidence continues to pile up implicating the Obama administration in the deaths. Whether through negligence or incompetence, the Administration's hands are not clean in this scandal, and in this election season, the mainstream media's silence has been deafening.
Let's review what information has come out so far. On September 11, 2012, the US Consulate compound in Benghazi, Libya was attacked by Islamic terrorists. According to various reports, in the days leading up to the attack, additional security had been requested, but the requests were denied, leaving Ambassador Stevens without adequate security when the consulate came under attack on the 11th. Reports have indicated that the US military had an unmanned drone in the area, giving Washington real-time video of the 7-hour engagement.
Various reports have indicated that forces on the ground in Benghazi, including two Navy SEALs who went in, against orders to stand down, to defend our Ambassador, requested additional support, including both air and ground support, and that those requests were repeatedly denied by officials in Washington. One of the latest rumors to come out is that General Ham, head of AFRICOM, was relieved of command when he decided to go against orders and send a rescue mission into Benghazi.
Reports seem to agree that unmanned drones were flying overhead during the attacks, streaming live video back to Washington, which begs the question: why were additional forces not sent into Benghazi to save our ambassador? Leon Panetta has spoken out, saying that additional troops were not sent in because the CIA and the military didn't have a good enough picture of the situation on the ground in Benghazi...but while initial reports from the White House indicated that the Navy SEALs that were killed were part of Ambassador Stevens' security detail, later reports indicate that those SEALs went in against orders to try and save the ambassador. One account even cites unnamed sources in the intelligence community that say President Obama himself was watching the live feed in the Situation Room as it happened. An AC-130 gunship was on the scene, yet was reportedly ordered not to provide support.
It seems as though reports have been kept intentionally confusing in an attempt by the White House to prevent the real facts from being revealed until after the election. The initial response by President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton was to blame the attack on the anti-Mohammed video posted on YouTube that virtually no one knew even existed before September 11.
The Obama administration's narrative on just what happened before, during, and after the attacks has been an ever-shifting target. The initial story coming out of the Administration and the State Department was that the violence in Benghazi was part of a protest over an anti-Islamic video - and both President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton took the opportunity to condemn that video in no uncertain terms. President Obama gave a rather stiff, mild speech in the Rose Garden condemning the video - that speech where he may or may not have called it a terrorist attack. Immediately after the speech, he flew to Las Vegas for a campaign fundraiser.
But it didn't stop there. Susan Rice, America's ambassador to the United Nations, appeared on multiple television shows linking the Benghazi attack to the YouTube video. The father of one of the slain SEALs reported that Hillary Clinton approached him as they were waiting at the airport for the bodies to arrive and told him that they would prosecute the creator of the video. FBI investigators didn't even make it to the scene until weeks after the attack.
By all accounts, the Obama administration had this attack wrong from the get-go. They spent weeks blaming the attack on the video, and wasted taxpayer dollars running commercials in Middle Easter nations apologizing for that video - which they in turn claimed the US government had nothing to do with, which begs the question of why the US government needed to apologize for it. President Obama even stood before the United Nations and blamed the video, going so far as to assert that it would be improper for any American to insult Islam, which was immediately followed by some leftists asserting that the First Amendment is pass? and could use some restrictions - an idea I'm sure they would abandon soon enough the next time they decide to set up camp in a public park.
As information continues to come out about just what happened in Benghazi on September 11, there are many more questions than there are answers. But a few things are clear. It is clear that the State Department dropped the ball on security for the Benghazi mission. It is clear that the president is trying to cover something up. When President Obama stood in front of the people of America during the second presidential debate and indignantly told Mitt Romney how insulted he was that Romney would even insinuate the administration was playing politics, it is clear that he was lying - the whole thing was an act. And as the information about what happened in Benghazi continues to be more and more damning for the Obama administration, it is clear that the mainstream media are intent on burying the lead on the Benghazi scandal.
How ironic is it that when a conservative commentator calls Sandra Fluke nasty names, it gets weeks of front-page press coverage, the President himself calls to console her ' and she eventually ends up getting a prime speaking spot at the Democrat National Convention. Meanwhile, when a Border Patrol agent is killed with weapons trafficked in Fast and Furious, the president sweeps it under the rug, and the media ignores it. When 4 Americans are killed in Benghazi, the president's campaign says the only reason it's still an issue is because of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.
This is more than just an election-year scandal. The President of the United States is attempting to cover up the circumstances surrounding the death of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, just like he has thus far covered up the circumstances surrounding the death of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry. How many deaths does this president have to cover up before it becomes important enough for the nation to pay attention?
Robert Cleveland, Senior Conservative Editor: Robert Cleveland is the IT Director for a document management services company. When he isn't working on computers and scanners, he's spending time with his wife and kids, or writing about just how jacked-up Washington politics is. He is a strong believer that hard work and freedom are what make America the greatest nation on the planet, and it is of the utmost importance that we never lose those values. Robert's other writing can be found at his blog, more...)