Archives May 2014

DON STERLING VS THE GIRL: NEVER TRUST A RAT

The following Op-Ed appeared in several newspapers along Florida’s Treasure Coast this date. 

Marshall Frank: Sterling wrong, but shun Stiviano, the rat

Marshall Frank is an author and retired South Florida police detective who lives in Melbourne. Online: MarshallFrank.com.

Friday, May 30, 2014

The esteemed queen of television interview, Barbara Walters, managed a coup recently when she convinced V. Stiviano to sit down and answer questions on camera about her relationship with Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling. The interview made good ratings, considering that Sterling has been exposed a racist and V. Stiviano is now a celebrity of sorts.

Beautiful, mixed-race, articulate, V. Stiviano has unabashedly been the “kept woman” on the side for the married billionaire, enjoying her half-million dollar car and a house worth nearly $2 million, plus all the clothes and amenities she could possibly want. Although he’s a married man, it’s all taken in stride, not unusual in 21st century America for some wives of multimillionaires to look the other way when their old moneybag spouses need to play.

All the media attention is on Mr. Sterling for exposing his views about blacks. Or did he? Seems those views were exposed not by him, but surreptitiously by the kept woman. What Barbara Walters failed to ask was: Why?

All the attention has been on Sterling’s racism. Missing was: “Why did you secretly tape private phone conversations with Don Sterling? Why did you give a copy of those tapes to another person?

Unless someone is a threat to national security, or conspiring to commit a serious felony, folks (even millionaires) have a right to expect privacy on telephones, unless a court order allows otherwise. This was a private conversation, not authorized for release. Free speech is guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Yes, Mr. Sterling was morally wrong. But so was the rat. Right or wrong, Sterling did a lot for V. Stiviano and she stuck it to him.

During my teen years, my widowed mother married a criminal. My stepfather was a bookie, taking illegal bets and loaning money for interest as his “career.” Yet, during my teens, he was a valued adviser, there for me during hard times with friendship and helping me get jobs (legitimate) in restaurants. Never would I betray the man who did so much for me. You never voluntarily rat on people who have gone to bat for you. Never.

Cops use finks all the time for information and to testify against others in criminal trials. They are important witnesses. Often, they are in a no-choice situation. Others turn states witness for selfish reasons. We may like them, but we don’t necessarily respect them.

Seems Stiviano is the ultimate opportunist, having been arrested four previous times in four jurisdictions, on charges like petty theft, burglary, possession of controlled substance and DUI, using any one of four aliases along the way. She landed her pot of gold with Sterling and now expects to walk away a wealthy celeb, perhaps with offers to act and model. Playboy, where are you?

To many, it is just as shameful to be a rat as it is to be racist. The world is shunning Don Sterling now, thanks to V. Stiviano. But the same should be imposed upon her, shunned by media and friends who, incidentally, better watch out. You can never trust a rat.

A FRANK MOVIE REVIEW: RAILWAY MAN 8 1/2

     The Railway Man  =  8 ½

     Movies released in late spring are generally aimed at the youth audience, with action heroes, inane comedy, cartoons and horror dominating the marquis. But once in a while, a truly good motion picture drama will emerge from the pack.  The Railway Man, released in April, is one of those deep and riveting motion pictures. It’s a “don’t miss” for people who appreciate great acting, superb directing and an engrossing drama based on a true story.

     In a nutshell, Colin Firth plays the role of a former British soldier who had been captured and tortured by the Japanese during WW II. Twenty years after the war, he meets a fresh spirit in the persona of Nicole Kidman and with whom he falls in love. But the daunting nightmares from those horror days in the internment camp not only continue to terrify as he relives the moments over and over, they eat at his new and loving wife.

     At center of those nightmares is the Japanese officer who conducted most of the torture. Viewers are also brought into the real moments of war and hate and family trauma, which this film skillfully depicts. The movie starts slowly, but stick around. The intensity heightens as it plods along, while the audience anticipates the next scene, and the next. Final scenes are very emotional.

     It’s too early in the year to start talking about Oscar-worthy performances, but there are four actors in this movie who would deserve nominations, Firth, Kidman, Tanroh Ishida and Hiroyuki Sanaka. Directed by Jonathan Teplitzky.

     It will probably bomb at the box office. That’s only because the movie-going audiences of modern times stick to genres that appeal to the very young.

          I give it 8 ½ out of ten.

Click here: The Railway Man Trailer (Theatrical Trailer) – IMDb

 

PART II BENGHAZI UNANSWERED ANSWERS

Part I of this topic (posted earlier this week) listed the most compelling Benghazi questions that remain unanswered, which is why the new select investigative committee has been formed in the House.

Part II will suggest probably, possible and feasible answers, many of which we hope are not true because they could reveal the ineptitude of our government leaders, if not the corruption behind many of the questionable actions and inaction. These “answers” are not absolute or provably true, but neither can they be eliminated. In connecting the proverbial dots, it would appear they are the most feasible of the possibilities. I certainly hope they are wrong.  Food for thought…

Questions 1:  Why was the video produced in the first place?

     The worst possible scenario is that it was produced for the very purpose it was used. Anyone ever think of that?

     The shooting of the 14 minute video, which was done in one day with unemployed actors needing a fast pay check, poorly scripted with silly costumes and inane dialogue, never had a purpose…other than to be leaked in the Internet system to the middle-east in order to rile the Muslims into riots and demonstrations. That’s not hard to do, if the Muslim Brotherhood operatives are dispatched on a mission to anger all Muslims in their countries, feigning outrage. (Remember the Danish cartoon) And, if there was a pre-planned objective in Benghazi, which had to do with Ambassador Stevens, the demonstrations about the video would have made a perfect smokescreen to carry out the plot. Read on.

 Question 2:  Who produced the video and why?

     The producer of the video is an Egyptian who claims to be a Christian Coptic. But that could also be a lie to distract investigators from the true origins and motive. He well could be a stealth operative of the notorious Muslim Brotherhood, who are known to practice Taqiyya (purposeful deceit) and who had been leading all the turmoil of the middle-east during that period. Mr. Mark Bassely Youssef, who goes by other names, ages and backgrounds, spent a year in jail following the Benghazi attack for violating probation in a federal bank fraud case. He has since been released and gave a partial phone interview to a television host (see link) but refuses to answer select questions.

     The bottom line is that Mr. Youssef had no profit or commercial motive for producing this sham of a film…other than, perhaps, the purpose for which it eventually rose to prominence.

     Sometimes, it’s hard to see what is in front of our very noses.

 Question #3:  At what periods prior to September 11, 2012, was the secretary of state informed of the growing presence of terrorist organizations in Benghazi and how many times? How often had Ambassador Stevens and other American operatives in Libya sent requests for added security?

     The CBS News timeline link (below) partly lists the nascent dangers that prevailed in Libya for many months prior to the September 11th attack. Terrorists and associates of al Qaeda were well known to be in the area, flying al Qaeda flags, terrorizing the British ambassador and the Red Cross out of the country.  For example:

     March 2012:  The head American security officer in Tripoli requests added security, but gets no response

     April 10th: An explosive device is hurled at a convoy carrying U.N. envoy, Ian Martin

     May 22nd, 2012: A rocket propelled grenade strikes the offices of the Red Cross

     June 6th 2012:  An IED explodes outside the consulate in Benghazi

     June 11th 2012:  Terrorists strike a convoy carrying the British ambassador

     July 9th, 2012:  U.S. Security Officer Nordstrom, and U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens send requests to the state department for additional security. Such requests are made often until mid-September.

     Early August, 2012:  The State Department removed the last of three, 6-man state department security teams as well as a 16-man military SST team from Libya. (Read that again, please)

     August 2nd and August 8th: Ambassador Stevens pleads for more security from state department citing the plethora of attacks and rising danger.

     August 27th: The state department issues a travel warning for Libya citing violence.

     September 11th:  The Consulate is attacked by terrorists, four Americans are killed.

Summary:  It is without question, the U.S. compounds in Libyan were in grave danger; every American diplomat in Libya knew this. If the diplomats in the state department knew this, and considering how volatile the Libyan situation was, the secretary of state surely knew this. Such information was clearly spelled out to the upper levels of the state department numerous times for months prior to the attack. And instead of complying with dire requests for increased security, the paltry security detail still there was pulled out a month before the attack, with no explanation.

     The worst case scenario is that the upper strata of the state department or the executive branch, knew in advance that an assault on the compound was planned and thus, the security systems were purposely gutted to enhance the success of the assault mission. If that’s the case, it would be the classic “set-up.”  I certainly hope that’s not true.

Question # 4:  What was the reason for denying the requested security?

     See final section of answer to Question #3.

Question # 5:   Why was Ambassador Stevens in that compound that evening?   

     No one knows for sure.  Stevens generally worked at the consulate in Tripoli and had just arrived – coincidentally – that day in Benghazi. His last guest of the evening was a Turkish diplomat who he escorted out of the guarded gates around 8:30 p.m.  No one knows the purpose of the Turk’s visit. But we do know, that the timing was perfect for Stevens to be there if the insurgents (terrorists) objective was to kill or capture the U.S. ambassador. How would they have known?

Question #6:     Was Ambassador Stevens engaged in assisting Syrian rebels with providing arms from Libya?

     Numerous reports, which the government would/could not confirm, were released following the Benghazi attack that Ambassador Stevens was the point man for funneling heavy arms weaponry, including surface–to-air missiles, to the rebels fighting in Syria, via a Turkish port. See the link (below) published by Business Insider. What that means, simply, is that Mr. Stevens was more than just an ambassadorial figurehead in the on-going Arab Spring.  Emphasis: This has not been confirmed absolutely.

Question #7:  Why was there no military intervention or rescue attempt?

     Retired General USAF General, Robert Lovell – the deputy director of intelligence at the Africa Command – testified to a congressional committee that, 1) The American forces and intelligence knew early on into the attack that it was a terrorist operation and nothing to do with a video demonstration and 2) there should definitely have been an attempt made, because there was no way of knowing how long the assault was going to last.

     Gregory Hicks, second in command at the Libyan embassy and consulate, has rendered heart-wrenching testimony how the authorities knew in real time that this was a terrorist assault, and that efforts to rescue or intervene in the attack should have been attempted. He added that a group of special forces based in Tripoli were ready to fly to Benghazi but were forbidden to do so by the Special Ops Command in Africa.

     Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, who worked directly under President Obama, told the media that he wouldn’t agree to send soldiers into a conflict unless they first knew more about it, and that there was not enough time to engage a rescue. But how would he know that?

     It is clear, that military personnel, who are ingrained with a credo to never leave Americans in harms way and to always attempt to rescue fellow Americans, no matter the peril, were on the ready and would have been there. But someone, somewhere, whoever had the ultimate authority, either refused to give the order or denied the request. Now who could that be?

     Question # 8:  Where was the president during the entire attack?

     This is what we know, based on info from key persons involved at the White House the evening of the attack.

     3:40 p.m. (EST)  – Terrorists initiate the attack on the Benghazi compound, using mortars and high powered military weaponry by more than one hundred attackers.

     3:50 p.m.  –  Ambassador Stevens calls his Number Two man, Greg Hicks in Tripoli advising he was under attack and pleads for help. Local security at the compound vanish.

     4:05 p.m.  – President Obama is informed of the attack while visiting wounded military at Walter Reed Hospital.

     4:50 p.m.  – The president arrives back at the White House via helicopter

     5:00 p.m.  —  The president meets with Secretary Leon Panetta and General Martin Dempsey for a 30-minute update on the situation. It is not known if any decisions were made or orders given. The president does not communicate with his top military staff the rest of the evening.

     8:00 p.m. – The embassy at Tripoli gets a call stating that Ambassador Stevens is dead.

     10:00 p.m.  – The president receives an update from Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton by phone.  (Sometime during the evening, Hillary Clinton released a public statement condemning the attack and further suggests the attack occurred during a demonstration against an Internet video…thus the public lie begins).

     11:15 p.m. –  Two former Seals are killed at the CIA annex in Benghazi

     12:30 a.m.  All U.S. personnel (approximately 32 people) are evacuated from the Benghazi complex to the airport.

     10:46 a.m.  –  President Obama makes a prepared speech from the Rose Garden condemning the assault, while making a general reference to terrorism “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this nation…”

     2:20 p.m.  President Obama departs AF One for Las Vegas, Nevada to attend a fund raiser, where he waves and smiles and speaks to an enthusiastic audience. Later in the week he appears on a late night comedy shows.

     No one remembers President Obama stepping foot in the situation room of the White House any time during the eight-hour terror offensive. While he was available via telephone, there is no evidence that the president took any form of a leading role during a virtual declaration of war against his consulate in Libya which resulted in four dead Americans. Basically, the president was awol.

      Did Obama call any official in any part of the world, particularly the middle-east and southern Europe, to ask for assistance during the attack? No. He called the government officials in Libya the next day, after the assault was over. The prime minister of Libya said it had been an attack by terrorists, and nothing to do with a youtube video demonstration.

     One week later, long after it was established that the attack was borne of terrorists and had nothing to do with a youtube video, President Obama appeared on David Letterman a week later spouting the false rhetoric about the video, well aware it was a lie.

 Question # 9:  Why did the president, secretary of state and the UN Ambassador continue to deceive the media and the public for three weeks, knowing the story about the youtube video was a lie starting from the first day?

     The only conceivable answer is: That’s what they wanted us all to believe. The next question is: Why? Why was is so important to make us all believe anything, other than this being a terror attack on the consulate? There must have been an important reason.

Question #10 :  Why did the president go about his normal routine, attending fund raisers and talk shows, while the bodies of murdered Americans from his Libyan consulate were still being grieved and the investigation was ostensibly underway? 

     a.   He didn’t care

     b.   He was detached

     c.   It wasn’t important

     d.   He was trying to detract attention from other unearthed facts which only he knew about.

     You pick.

Question  #11 and #12:  – Why did the Secretary of State delegate her role to appear on five Sunday talk shows to the UN Ambassador, who had no involvement in the situation? Why did the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, dodge the media and the American public for three months following the Benghazi attacks?

     Good questions. Considering the fact that four Americans at a state department facility were murdered on her watch, including Ambassador Stevens, the secretary of state would be expected to engage into a strong leadership role in getting to the facts, cancelling all other routine or non-vital matters. But that didn’t happen.  One can only conclude:

     a.   She really didn’t care

     b.   She had no idea what to do or how to do it, and didn’t want to look foolish.

     c.   It was a low priority

     d.   She had something to hide, ergo: the deliberate lie about a youtube video.

     My bet is the “d” answer. Which is another good reason this investigative committee is so essential.

Question #13:   Why did it take three weeks to dispatch a team of FBI agents to the Benghazi crime scene?

     Everyone knows that the most essential elements of a crime scene investigation is the immediacy of searching for and recovering evidence. President Obama had the latitude to make contact with the prime minister of Libya (who he helped to install) and arrange for government protections and U.S. investigators to arrive the next one or two days after the attack. That didn’t happen. What normally would have happened is for the FBI, CIA and other state department investigators asking to be sent to the scene asap to search for documents, forensic evidence, witnesses and such.  The only conclusion is they were not sent for three long weeks…deliberately. From there, one can easily conclude, there was something to hide.

     There’s another goal for the congressional committee.

Question #14:  What happened to the 32 survivors that were ushered out of the complex and flown out the night of the attack?

     Conflicting reports have been released, some say a few of the Americans were interviewed by FBI but no one knows the outcome of those interviews. Senator Lindsey Graham has reported that he has spoken to some of the secreted witnesses who claim they have been warned by government officials not to speak to anyone. Now that subpoena power will be in the hands of the congressional committee, more of these witnesses will be questioned. The bigger question is: Why have the majority of these people been secreted?

Question #15:  Why haven’t the attackers been identified, apprehended and brought to justice?

     Apparently, eighteen attackers have been identified and are still roaming free in the streets of Libya. One of those attackers, believed to be the leader, is a released inmate from Guantanamo. Additional reports reveal that the FBI is ready to go into action, but are being thwarted in their investigation by the state department. The last two links (below) address these questions.

Question #16:  Is it possible that top-level officials in the White House, state department and defense department could be guilty of Obstruction of Justice?

     Answer: Yes. If any leaders in those three government agencies were involved in any of the planning, execution or cover-up of this crime, they would be obstructing justice. And that is why this congressional committee is so important.

     Summary: This case is much like a high-profile whodunit murder. There is no statute of limitations. The perpetrators and/or conspirators should be brought to justice and anyone who knowingly obstructed justice – regardless of the reason – should be charged, tried and sentenced accordingly.

     It is reasonable to conclude that Ambassador Stevens, who died of smoke inhalation and not gunshot wounds, was killed inadvertantly. Thus, he was not necessarily the target for a killing. Having died by smoke inhalation, the grand plan – whatever it was – went awry.  Ergo, all the cover-ups.

     There have been numerous reports (unconfirmed) which spread through the Internet, that Ambassador Stevens was to be the victim of a kidnapping amid the “demonstrations” against the anti-Muslim video. Purpose: To set up a release trade for the Blind Sheik, Abdel-Rahman, still in prison for the 1993 Trade Center bombing.  If Obama brokered a deal to rescue Stevens, he would look like a hero prior to election day. And, Mohammed Morsi (then, the Muslim Brotherhood leader of Egypt) would achieve one of his stated goals, previously announced, to get the release of the blind sheik.  

     If anyone in the administration was pre-informed  (or part of) the plan, it would stand to reason to tell everyone in the government to dummy up, act like nothing is wrong.

     Of course, such a plan is so preposterous, it’s impossible to believe. Even though that would explain practically every mistake — before during and after — and every unanswered question in this entire conundrum. Could it be?  Naw.

      One thing is certain: Barack Obama lied, Hillary Clinton lied and others lied. This was an act of terror that did not necessitate a cover-up. But there certainly was a cover-up. If so, why?

Click here: The Filmmaker Who Made the Anti-Islam Video That Sparked Violent Mideast Protests Is a Ghost

Click here: ? Anti Muslim Filmmaker Blamed for Benghazi Blasts Obama – YouTube

Click here: Benghazi timeline: How the attack unfolded – CBS News

Click here: At 2 A.M., Gregory Hicks in Libya Briefed Secretary Clinton on Terrorist Attack | National Review Online

Click here: 2012 Benghazi attack – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click here: General: Military should’ve tried Benghazi rescue

Click here: Diplomat: U.S. Special Forces told “you can’t go” to Benghazi during attacks – CBS News

Click here: Timeline of terror: Where was Obama during Benghazi attack? | Fox News Video

Click here: Obama One Week After Benghazi Attack: Video Responsible | The Blog on Obama: White House Dossier

Click here: Benghazi whistleblowers report threats from Obama Administration officials | Human Events

Click here: ? ? Benghazi Terrorist Suspects Identified But No Arrests Made RPT America Needs Answers Cavuto – YouTube

Click here: U.S. names militants involved in Benghazi attack – CBS News

 

BENGHAZI'S UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

     This is the first blog of a two-part blog —
     Part I will cite the array of unanswered questions in the Benghazi fiasco, which is why congress has finally formed a special committee with subpoena power to get to the truth. Opponents of the committee claim that these hearings and issues have already been through the wash. But that’s not true. There’s been a lot of dodging and theatrics, but the key questions are still waiting to be answered.
Part I:  Benghazi Questions
     If the democrats were really smart, they’d act more like there is nothing to hide. “Sure. Go for it. We’d like to help. We need to get these questions answered.” That’s not happening.
     Instead, nearly every democrat in the house (except for five) and all democrats in the senate are lock-step with the president and others in the executive branch, labeling the upcoming investigations as a political ploy. Nancy Pelosi looks scared to death, calling the committee a stunt when she knows full well some uncomfortable facts are looming which will, at the least, embarrass the president and former secretary of state, if not cause them to be charged.
     The president would have us believe that the Benghazi fiasco is a “phony scandal.”  Keep repeating the phrase and some people will begin believing that. But the facts – if folks are willing to follow the facts – speak otherwise. The facts speak of cover-up, gross negligence, incompetence, deliberate lies, leaving our men in harms way and then doing nothing to even pretend they tried to send help, then inventing a false narrative as a lame explanation to the American people in order to divert attention from the truth. 
     Nixon’s lies and cover-up activities had to do with his integrity in dealing with a political burglary perpetrated by his henchmen. That’s it. Political burglary and the lies that followed resulted in the resignation of a president.
     THIS is about terrorism, the murder of our ambassador and three other Americans, leaving them exposed to extreme danger despite pleas for help to the state department, failing to attempt a rescue and then lying from day one, casting blame on an Internet video when they knew it was a lie. 
      Three days later, when the caskets first arrived in America, the president’s entourage was dutifully on hand to make speeches. That’s when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had the audacity to tell the audience, including parents of felled Navy Seals, the lie about a video.
     One can only imagine what and how those parents were feeling. 
     Here are the primary questions that have yet to be answered, still stored away in the minds and hearts of people like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

  1. Why was this video produced in the first place? Anyone who has seen the video knows it is grossly inane and amateurish, as though it was designed for some nefarious purpose other than insulting Mohammed.
  2. Where is the producer of the video, what is his true background, and why has he not been interrogated by the federal authorities, if not the congressional committee?
  3. At what periods prior to September 11, 2012, was the secretary of state informed of the growing presence of al Sharia and other al Qaeda related forces in Benghazi, and how many times? How often did Ambassador Stevens and other diplomats in the Benghazi consulate send requests for added security, because the Red Cross and the UK had already fled, and the U.S. consulate had already been attacked in prior months?
  4. What was the reason for denying the requested security? How deeply did the state department check into and verify the state of peril?  And why was some of the minimal security, already there, pulled out of Benghazi?
  5. What was Ambassador Stevens doing in the Benghazi compound that specific evening? Did he have specific purpose for being there, or was he lured that night for a purpose?
  6. Was Ambassador Stevens engaged in assisting the Syrian rebels with providing arms from Libya, as some claim?
  7. Why was there no military intervention or rescue attempt? Who ordered the stand down? What was the president’s order?  Was a rescue considered, or was there silence? Records and testimony have revealed that the White House knew after two hours that an assault was taking place at Benghazi and our personnel were under fire. Military personnel, including top generals, knew in real time that the assault had nothing to do with a video demonstration. Military jets and drones were available for deployment. Leon Panetta’s claim that they could not get there in time was a false narrative, because he – nor anyone else – knew how long the assault was going to last, a few hours, a few days, weeks?  Why no rescue attempt?  At the least, an attempt.
  8. Where was the president during this outrageous attack on American personnel? Where was the leader of America in time of crisis?  Why wasn’t the leader, leading? His minions have said he was not in the Situation Room, why not? Allegedly he was in the White House somewhere following the event on phone updates. During the heat of the battle at 8 p.m. EST, two-three hours into the attack, the president was apparently on the phone with Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu for an hour discussing how to address news reports that he had snubbed the prime minister. This — while in the heat of an attack on the American consulate.
  9. Military and CIA personnel knew within two hours the origins of this attack, that it was unrelated to any anti-Muslim video. It was confirmed the next day. Why then did the president, secretary of state and UN Ambassador Susan Rice stick to a false narrative for days after, telling America that the video ignited a protest similar to the ones in Egypt, when they knew it was untrue? They were relating this as a fact, not a supposition.
  10. Why did the president go about his normal routine the next morning, flying to a fund raiser in Law Vegas and later, appearing on late night comedy talk shows while Banghazi still smoldered and American bodies were being assembled for transport to America? 
  11. Why didn’t the Secretary of State do her job and personally appear on five network shows, instead of delegating the task to a UN Ambassador who had no involvement in the investigation, other than to follow orders blaming the video?
  12. Why did the Secretary of State spend the next three months traveling around the world on miscellaneous “diplomatic missions” rather than confronting the issue head on and assisting federal authorities in the investigation? Why didn’t the secretary of state take this more seriously?
  13. Why did it take three weeks to dispatch the FBI to the Benghazi crime scene? Every rookie cop knows that crime scenes must be examined as soon as possible in order to prevent contamination or loss of evidence.
  14. What happened to the thirty escaped witnesses that were on the compound and have since been secreted by the government?  Why isn’t their testimony forthcoming?
  15. Why haven’t any of the attackers been arrested and brought to justice?  How much of an effort has been made to investigate and identify the perpetrators?  Or should we defer to the long delayed and lackadaisical FBI response as an answer to that question?
  16. Has there been an obstruction of justice and if so, who are the guilty parties?

This is our government, folks.
Stay tuned for Part II.
Click here: LiveLeak.com – Trey Gowdy Challenges the Press on Benghazi
Click here: ? Judge Jeanine Pirro Opening Statement – Benghazi Scandal
Click here: Charles Krauthammer: Benghazi Email ‘Smoking Gun’ of a Cover-Up
Click here: Charles Krauthammer: Guide for Benghazi hearings
Click here: Top GOP Senators Seek Obama’s Whereabouts During Benghazi Attacks

BENGHAZI’S UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

     This is the first blog of a two-part blog —

     Part I will cite the array of unanswered questions in the Benghazi fiasco, which is why congress has finally formed a special committee with subpoena power to get to the truth. Opponents of the committee claim that these hearings and issues have already been through the wash. But that’s not true. There’s been a lot of dodging and theatrics, but the key questions are still waiting to be answered.

Part I:  Benghazi Questions

     If the democrats were really smart, they’d act more like there is nothing to hide. “Sure. Go for it. We’d like to help. We need to get these questions answered.” That’s not happening.

     Instead, nearly every democrat in the house (except for five) and all democrats in the senate are lock-step with the president and others in the executive branch, labeling the upcoming investigations as a political ploy. Nancy Pelosi looks scared to death, calling the committee a stunt when she knows full well some uncomfortable facts are looming which will, at the least, embarrass the president and former secretary of state, if not cause them to be charged.

     The president would have us believe that the Benghazi fiasco is a “phony scandal.”  Keep repeating the phrase and some people will begin believing that. But the facts – if folks are willing to follow the facts – speak otherwise. The facts speak of cover-up, gross negligence, incompetence, deliberate lies, leaving our men in harms way and then doing nothing to even pretend they tried to send help, then inventing a false narrative as a lame explanation to the American people in order to divert attention from the truth. 

     Nixon’s lies and cover-up activities had to do with his integrity in dealing with a political burglary perpetrated by his henchmen. That’s it. Political burglary and the lies that followed resulted in the resignation of a president.

     THIS is about terrorism, the murder of our ambassador and three other Americans, leaving them exposed to extreme danger despite pleas for help to the state department, failing to attempt a rescue and then lying from day one, casting blame on an Internet video when they knew it was a lie. 

      Three days later, when the caskets first arrived in America, the president’s entourage was dutifully on hand to make speeches. That’s when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had the audacity to tell the audience, including parents of felled Navy Seals, the lie about a video.

     One can only imagine what and how those parents were feeling. 

     Here are the primary questions that have yet to be answered, still stored away in the minds and hearts of people like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

  1. Why was this video produced in the first place? Anyone who has seen the video knows it is grossly inane and amateurish, as though it was designed for some nefarious purpose other than insulting Mohammed.
  2. Where is the producer of the video, what is his true background, and why has he not been interrogated by the federal authorities, if not the congressional committee?
  3. At what periods prior to September 11, 2012, was the secretary of state informed of the growing presence of al Sharia and other al Qaeda related forces in Benghazi, and how many times? How often did Ambassador Stevens and other diplomats in the Benghazi consulate send requests for added security, because the Red Cross and the UK had already fled, and the U.S. consulate had already been attacked in prior months?
  4. What was the reason for denying the requested security? How deeply did the state department check into and verify the state of peril?  And why was some of the minimal security, already there, pulled out of Benghazi?
  5. What was Ambassador Stevens doing in the Benghazi compound that specific evening? Did he have specific purpose for being there, or was he lured that night for a purpose?
  6. Was Ambassador Stevens engaged in assisting the Syrian rebels with providing arms from Libya, as some claim?
  7. Why was there no military intervention or rescue attempt? Who ordered the stand down? What was the president’s order?  Was a rescue considered, or was there silence? Records and testimony have revealed that the White House knew after two hours that an assault was taking place at Benghazi and our personnel were under fire. Military personnel, including top generals, knew in real time that the assault had nothing to do with a video demonstration. Military jets and drones were available for deployment. Leon Panetta’s claim that they could not get there in time was a false narrative, because he – nor anyone else – knew how long the assault was going to last, a few hours, a few days, weeks?  Why no rescue attempt?  At the least, an attempt.
  8. Where was the president during this outrageous attack on American personnel? Where was the leader of America in time of crisis?  Why wasn’t the leader, leading? His minions have said he was not in the Situation Room, why not? Allegedly he was in the White House somewhere following the event on phone updates. During the heat of the battle at 8 p.m. EST, two-three hours into the attack, the president was apparently on the phone with Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu for an hour discussing how to address news reports that he had snubbed the prime minister. This — while in the heat of an attack on the American consulate.
  9. Military and CIA personnel knew within two hours the origins of this attack, that it was unrelated to any anti-Muslim video. It was confirmed the next day. Why then did the president, secretary of state and UN Ambassador Susan Rice stick to a false narrative for days after, telling America that the video ignited a protest similar to the ones in Egypt, when they knew it was untrue? They were relating this as a fact, not a supposition.
  10. Why did the president go about his normal routine the next morning, flying to a fund raiser in Law Vegas and later, appearing on late night comedy talk shows while Banghazi still smoldered and American bodies were being assembled for transport to America? 
  11. Why didn’t the Secretary of State do her job and personally appear on five network shows, instead of delegating the task to a UN Ambassador who had no involvement in the investigation, other than to follow orders blaming the video?
  12. Why did the Secretary of State spend the next three months traveling around the world on miscellaneous “diplomatic missions” rather than confronting the issue head on and assisting federal authorities in the investigation? Why didn’t the secretary of state take this more seriously?
  13. Why did it take three weeks to dispatch the FBI to the Benghazi crime scene? Every rookie cop knows that crime scenes must be examined as soon as possible in order to prevent contamination or loss of evidence.
  14. What happened to the thirty escaped witnesses that were on the compound and have since been secreted by the government?  Why isn’t their testimony forthcoming?
  15. Why haven’t any of the attackers been arrested and brought to justice?  How much of an effort has been made to investigate and identify the perpetrators?  Or should we defer to the long delayed and lackadaisical FBI response as an answer to that question?
  16. Has there been an obstruction of justice and if so, who are the guilty parties?

This is our government, folks.

Stay tuned for Part II.

Click here: LiveLeak.com – Trey Gowdy Challenges the Press on Benghazi

Click here: ? Judge Jeanine Pirro Opening Statement – Benghazi Scandal

Click here: Charles Krauthammer: Benghazi Email ‘Smoking Gun’ of a Cover-Up

Click here: Charles Krauthammer: Guide for Benghazi hearings

Click here: Top GOP Senators Seek Obama’s Whereabouts During Benghazi Attacks