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.
- 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.
- 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?
- 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?
- 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?
- 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?
- Was Ambassador Stevens engaged in assisting the Syrian rebels with providing arms from Libya, as some claim?
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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?
- 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?
- 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?
- 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.
- 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?
- 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?
- 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.