The Obama administration is damaged irreparably because of the Benghazi scandal.
Well, it should be. And given the latest information that’s come forward since the attack, we may finally begin to discover the truth.
Since news of the September 11th attack on the consulate and CIA annex in 2012 broke, everyone in the White House from President Obama to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has scrambled to cover up the true events and divert the media’s (and people’s) attention away from it. Initially, we were told that the attack was a response to an anti-Islamic video found on the internet, a “spontaneous reaction” according to UN Ambassador Susan Rice. Though President Obama referred to the event as an “act of terror” shortly thereafter in his Rose Garden speech, he did not cite terrorism as the cause for the attack, and the spirit of his words certainly did not imply that terrorism was involved. President Obama’s semantics were hotly contested later in a debate against Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
Evidence contradictory to the “spontaneous” protest has accumulated ever since, and each piece of information is more damning than the next. In her latest book, Hard Choices, Hillary Clinton attempted to clear up her involvement in the security predicament before the attack and the handling of its dissemination to the press. Clinton makes the mistake of claiming that there were Marines stationed at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli. However, according to testimony by General Carter Ham (previously the commander of the Africa Command), troops were not sent to Tripoli until after the attack on Benghazi. Are we to believe that she has been completely oblivious to the facts of the Benghazi situation, or is she lying? Neither situation demonstrates proper leadership.
Even news sources previously weak on covering Benghazi have stepped up in questioning the Obama administration about the attack’s details. Recently, ABC News’s Diane Sawyer grilled Clinton on the requests for additional security from the compound in Benghazi. Clinton stated she isn’t personally “equipped to sit and look at blueprints to determine where the blast walls need to be, where the reinforcements need to be.” Not giving up, Sawyer forced Clinton to admit that the Benghazi compound experienced a “systematic failure.” When asked if she “[missed] the moment to prevent [the attack] from happening”, Clinton denied, despite the fact that an August 16th cable from Tripoli to the State Department expressed concerns for the lack of security and adequate protection at the consulate. The cable says explicitly that the Regional Security Officer “expressed concerns with the ability to defend Post in the event of a coordinated attack due to limited manpower, security measures, weapons capabilities, host nation support, and the overall size of the compound.” Clinton denies knowing about this cable even though other members of the Cabinet did, including former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Martin Dempsey. Referring to the cable, Dempsey in testimony stated, “I would call myself surprised that [Clinton] didn’t know about it.”
If this information was not enough to dismantle allegations that the Benghazi attack was a “spontaneous reaction” rather than a planned terrorist attack, the latest evidence should obliterate such allegations. According to multiple sources, shortly after chaos erupted at the compound, cell phones owned by officials at the consulate were seized by the terrorists and used to communicate the success of the attack to senior terrorist leaders. Eric Stahl, who at the time was commander and pilot of the C-17 aircraft that carried the four deceased Americans and the remaining survivors to a base in Germany, relayed that the CIA members who responded to the scene were “confused” when the Obama administration cited a video as the catalyst for the attack, because they already knew who seized the cell phones and why. Another anonymous U.S. official claims that he read specific intelligence reports detailing this information, which was conveyed in real time to the security team at the site.
Why would the Obama administration choose to describe the Benghazi attacks as spontaneous and internet-inspired with all of this information at hand? Why were the requests from Tripoli for additional security ignored in the first place? The deaths of Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were preventable, and the current administration failed utterly in preventing them.
What’s interesting to note is that neither Eric Stahl nor Secretary of State Clinton herself were ever summoned for testimony by the Accountability Review Board, the group responsible for investigating the events of Benghazi. Stahl and other U.S. officials knew in real time that senior terrorist leaders were notified of the successful operation via State Department phones. This fact makes it difficult to believe that our nation’s leaders, including President Obama and Secretary Clinton, were not aware of this information themselves.
The natural question that follows is this: who wants Benghazi buried so deeply, and why?