Now, finally, thirty-five days after the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, the murders of our ambassador and three other brave Americans and countless confused, confusing, and contradictory coverup stories put out by various members of Team Obama, from UN Ambassador Susan Rice’s outright lies within five days to VP Biden’s obfuscation during the recent debate, Hillary Clinton, Obama’s good, little soldier and stalwart Secretary of State, mans up more than Obama and has now accepted “full responsibility” for the security failures which led to our being successfully attacked on our own soil (our embassies and consulates are US property anywhere in the world) for the first time in eleven years and our first ambassador in thirty-three years being killed.
So, in addition to making sure to say the on-the-ground security (or, I guess, really, the lack thereof) was determined by State Department “security professionals,” as a subliminal way of distancing even herself, and that everything is being investigated and examined to ensure nothing like this ever happens again, my first question is, not so fast, WHY did it really happen THIS time, and my second question is, then, WHEN are you going to RESIGN, Madame Secretary, and my third question is, okay, if Hillary accepts responsibility for what happened BEFORE the attack, who accepts responsibility for what’s happened SINCE the attack, that is, since the coverup began?
By the way, hasn’t Obama in the past quoted one of my favorite Democratic presidents, using Harry Truman’s “The buck stops here”? It seems more likely in Obama’s case, the buck always stops, not here but over there somewhere. But, I digress.
If Hillary doesn’t at least resign, her “acceptance of responsibility” will be without real consequence, except perhaps for some of those unnamed “security professionals” deep in the bowels of the State Department, who were obviously, for one reason or another (and quite possibly and shamefully for politically dictated reasons), so inept at their jobs.
In fact, so inept, or otherwise restrained, that an attack on that same consulate in April 2012 and again in June 2012, in which a gapping, 12-foot hole was blasted in the compound wall, coupled with known al-Qaeda terrorist militia operating in the area, were all insufficient signs of impending trouble, especially as we approached the anniversary of 9/11, annually celebrated as the most significant date to al-Qaeda terrorists all over the Muslim world. Or how about the multiple requests for additional security from the Regional Security Officer (RSO) and quite probably, judging from his personal, CNN-recovered journal, from Ambassador Stevens himself? Or how about the Brits and the Red Cross pulling their people out of the area prior to 9/11 because of attacks by known al-Qaeda militia in the area?
Big, red, frickin’ warning flags anyone? Or was it that no one was paying close enough attention to little ole Libya on the eve of 9/11? Or perhaps that Obama had missed 62% of his daily intel briefings at which some of this info might have been shared or at least the allegedly most “brilliant” president we’ve ever supposedly had could have asked some pertinent questions to elicit the info? Or perhaps that the Obama reelection campaign “narrative” precluded allowing any indication that our “lead from behind” victory in Libya had resulted in a Libyan government too weak to help protect our interests and people in the area and that al-Qaeda, rather than being defeated and in retreat as persistently claimed by Team Obama and all the Democrats in general at their recent national convention, was instead resurgent not only in Libya but also all across Northern Africa and into Indonesia? Or that Obama’s feckless foreign policy of “reset relations,” “apology and appeasement,” and “soft power” was unraveling, as demonstrations at our embassies all across the Muslim world erupted, with Obama himself being burned in effigy? Very inconvenient for a president who’s supposed to be so good at foreign policy and especially during a reelection campaign. You know what I’m sayin’?
As one who was in the security business while in the Army for over 25 years, including everything from the physical security of facilities and personnel of an Army brigade spread all over a combat zone in Vietnam, to physical security of facilities and personnel (to include VIP security of the commanding general and visiting dignitaries, including the Secretary of Defense) of a NATO air defense command of several brigades spread all over West Germany, to operational security for the US side during the 1988 Olympics in South Korea, I think I, too, can safely call myself a “security professional.”
And anyone — anyone — who is supposed to be a security professional and who missed or, for whatever reasons, ignored as many red flags as there seem to have been in this case (and we still don’t even know the full story yet) would have not only been fired but also, in the military, probably court-martialed. And that’s what needs to happen here. Not only apologies, not only “acceptance of responsibility” without any real consequences, not only “we’re investigating it,” not only resignations, but criminal prosecution and possibly imprisonment — for all and any involved. Remember when there was a time when Democrats and other liberals loved repeating over and over about the war in Iraq that “Bush lied and people died”? Well, regarding Benghazi-gate, people also died and then it seems Team Obama lied, and lied, and lied.
I won’t waste much of my time here about where the so-called mainstream (lamestream) media have been on the whole Benghazi-gate story. It’s disgusting how the members of our Fourth Estate have so actively avoided their jobs on this scandal, except those occasionally shamed into commenting on it by the excellent, daily and unrelenting, breaking news coverage by Fox News. This still didn’t stop the New York Times, AKA the Fishwrap of Record, from recently thinking an above-the-fold, front-page story on South Korean crop failures was evidently more important than the Benghazi-gate scandal, which, if mentioned at all in that issue, was buried on some inner pages of the paper (suitable, in the case of the NYT, for lining the bottom of bird cages).
Remember Watergate, the illegal office break-in and subsequent coverup by the Nixon Administration? The scandal which demonstrated that, in DC, the coverup is often worse than the crime? The scandal which gave us the whatever-gate reference in the first place but in which, by the way and unlike Benghazi, no one was killed?
And remember the way in which the media were like sharks smelling blood in the water and camped out at Nixon officials’ homes and hounded that president from office? Well, that was the 1970s, when even our admittedly liberal media weren’t as liberal as they are today and therefore not as biased, either. And that was a Republican president and not the Democratic and media created and adored president of today. If one ever needed any more convincing proof of the liberal media bias and selectively abdicating their jobs, Benghazi-gate is it. Heard of any media so-called reporters hanging out at Susan Rice’s residence lately and hounding her for why she so blatantly lied and, more importantly, who told her to lie? No? Yeah, didn’t think so. Obama’s slavishly sycophantic lamestream media are instead in full protection mode of Obama for his reelection and therefore complicit in the coverup as well.
If you want a good timeline of the Benghazi-gate scandal as it has actually unfolded, even if you don’t like Fox News, or despairingly call if Faux News, or claim that its viewers are less educated, informed or whatever, the timeline done by Fox News’ Bret Baier is the best and, because of the lack of other media interest, much less actual coverage, perhaps the only one you will find: http://video.foxnews.com/v/1892704860001/reexamining-the-timeline-of-events-in-libya/?intcmp=obnetwork. View the timeline and make your own conclusions.
To me, in rough summary, Obama appeared in the Rose Garden with Hillary on 9/12, the day after the attack, and alluded to “acts of terror” in talking about 9/11 but did not say, as some in Team Obama have subsequently tried to claim, that the Benghazi attack was one of them, nor did he call Benghazi a terrorist attack outright. He then took no questions from the assembled press and quickly departed for a fundraiser in Las Vegas. That’s what’s called “bad optics” in the political game.
On 9/16, five days after the attack, UN Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on all the Sunday TV talk shows and repeatedly insisted that there was “no evidence” the attack was “pre-planned or premeditated” and that it was the result of a larger demonstration over a little seen video (a 17-minute trailer with only 300 viewing hits as of 9/11) which had “spun out of control,” as allegedly the demonstrations at our embassy in Cairo and later elsewhere were also.
On 9/25, when Obama spoke at the UN General Assembly but had no time to meet with any other world leaders (again, in a hurry to get back on the fundraising and campaign trail), Obama referred to the video six times as the cause of all the demonstrations and still never said Benghazi was a terrorist attack.
I don’t have exact dates, but somewhere in the mix here, Team Obama began saying it all happened because of faulty intel, then because the State Department screwed up, and after days and days of saying it was unknown and an investigation was ongoing (when it took the FBI three weeks to even get on the ground in Benghazi because of, er, ah, security concerns for their personnel), all of a sudden Obama’s mouthpiece Jay Carney was saying, and with a straight face, too, that it was “self-evident” that Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Huh? What? Honest to goodness, I don’t know how Smarmy Carney avoids whiplash sometimes.
Then, on 10/10, Congressional hearings began to investigate the Benghazi-gate brouhaha and, interestingly enough, not because of anything revealed by Team Obama but because of what’s come out in the Congressional testimony and through other leaks, we now know State Department officials watched the attack in real time via a satellite uplinked video and knew there was no larger demonstration which “spun out of control.”
Think about that fact alone for a moment. So, since a UN ambassador doesn’t go on national TV to speak for the Administration without clearance, if not talking points, from the White House, then how do we explain Susan Rice’s false claims five days after the attack? Did State Department officials who witnessed the attack in real time not tell their boss Hillary, not tell the White House, not tell anyone on Obama’s National Security Council, not tell Obama’s Director of National Intelligence (DNI), not tell anyone, all while Obama and his team were in the news still so assiduously insisting the genesis was the video and a larger demonstration? Joe Biden claimed that “we,” meaning him and Obama, didn’t know anything about requests for extra security for Benghazi, and that may be true, but shouldn’t someone have told them somewhere along the line? What does their national security team do for their taxpayer salaries anyway? Even James Clapper, Obama’s DNI, was late to the party, remaining in seclusion for weeks before finally coming out as a backup man to further alibi Team Obama with the old “as intel has evolved” story.
We also now know that repeated requests for additional security were made by our people in Benghazi, which were repeatedly rejected by State Department personnel, and that, by State Department personnel’s own testimony, it was not, as falsely claimed by VP Biden during his debate with Congressman Ryan, because of any funding cutbacks by mean ole Republicans, or anybody else, much less by Ryan himself, as alleged by Biden. Besides, our embassy in Paris, for example, had a 50-Marine contingent — but none for Benghazi, in what many just might view as a more dangerous place in the world than the mean streets of the City of Lights, especially on the eve of 9/11? That is, as some of us from the South say, a puzzlement.
We also now know that, but for the testimony which has come out in the Congressional hearings run by those “mean old, partisan and politically motivated Republicans,” Team Obama might have gotten away with a coverup of Benghazi-gate altogether and even Hillary wouldn’t have had to finally admit some fault, albeit like most politicians’ apologies, which usually say something like, “I’m not sorry for what I said or did but I am sorry you didn’t understand what I said or did.” Again, accepting “full responsibility” without at least resigning is merely a political ploy without real consequences.
Since it should now be fairly obvious Team Obama hasn’t and won’t tell us the real truth about this, I hope more Congressional investigation gets to the bottom of the Benghazi-gate scandal and its coverup, and that all of those responsible are fully and criminally prosecuted — because people died, and apparently unnecessarily.
But one must also wonder, if Team Obama lied to us about something this important, about our ambassador and three others being killed in a terrorist attack, because it was politically inconvenient to admit during their reelection campaign, what else have they already lied to us about which we don’t yet, and may never, know? What else might they lie to us about in the future, especially if they’re given another four years on November 6? Many things to ponder, beyond just rising gas prices, in the next two-and-a-half weeks.
[Related articles: My “Obama’s Bungled Benghazi Brouhaha” on September 25 and my “I Wondered Where the Clapper Was” on October 2 also at: https://myconservativeperspective.wordpress.com.%5D