It has been well over a year since the deadly terrorist attack in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 and we are just now learning (or confirming) crucial details.
In a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report released this week it was revealed that the administration could have prevented the death of the four Americans who lost their lives that day, but clearly that didn't happen.
I'd like to point out that this report came from the Senate, which is controlled by Democrats, meaning that this information would not have come out without Democratic support. To me this indicates that even Senate Democrats are admitting that Benghazi is a major scandal for Barack Obama and for Hillary Clinton.
Here are some of the highlights of this report …
- There were no spontaneous protests
- The State Department failed to heed numerous security warnings
- Those participating in the attack had ties to al Qaeda
We also know, thanks to a report from Fox News' James Rosen, that Obama and the White House were told that this was a terrorist attack from the beginning. Additionally, newly declassified documents call into question our government's readiness to handle any attacks on the anniversary of 9/11.
In other words, this administration has a lot of explaining to do.
Let's start with the protests. Intelligence sources knew almost immediately that this was a terrorist attack and it had nothing to do with a YouTube video. The Senate Intelligence Report states, “Contrary to many press reports at the time, eyewitness statements by U.S. personnel indicate that there were no protests at the start of the attacks.”
Days later (September 15) the CIA reiterated that this was not because of a spontaneous protest. This, by the way, was the same day that the filmmaker for the infamous YouTube video was being paraded around in police custody.
Despite knowing from the beginning that this was a planned attack that had nothing to do with a YouTube video, the very next day (September 16th) Susan Rice, who was the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. at the time, went on five Sunday shows to peddle this YouTube protest fallacy. Where did that narrative come from? We still don't have an answer to that question.
The Senate report continues: “On September 18, 2012, the FBI and CIA reviewed the closed circuit television video from the mission facility that showed there were no protests prior to the attacks.” Yet still, that didn't stop the lie campaign. Obama headed to the United Nations a week later and continued to blame the YouTube video.
In the infamous words of Hillary Clinton, “What difference, at this point, does it make?” Well it makes a big difference. If Hillary Clinton wants to run for president, she must also answer for Benghazi. While it only specifically names her once, the negligence on the part of the State Department is ultimately her responsibility. The safety and security of diplomats serving America abroad falls under her jurisdiction, and this report squarely indicates that the State Department was told about the security issues and could have done something to prevent an attack but didn't. She must answer as to why that is the case.
After all, Chris Christie was just excoriated by the media for misconduct by his staff, but he ultimately took responsibility for their outrageous lack of judgement. When has Hillary Clinton bothered to take responsibility for this security lapse, much less even apologize or give the truth to the families of the four victims?
It makes a big difference if the American people, and the families of the victims, were lied to. Without the truth, it begs for us to fill in the holes and make assumptions. Many may assume that the lying and reluctance to take responsibility is for political reasons, seeing any claim of culpability as a nail the coffin of Hillary's presidential aspirations.
But she may have already sealed that one with, in my mind, one of the most egregious pieces of information to come to light recently: In Robert Gates' book, Hillary admitted to Barack Obama that she opposed the 2007 troop surge in Iraq purely for political purposes as his then-opponent in the primaries.
Furthermore, it is important to note that despite the Obama campaign narrative and the recent New York Times report, groups tied to al Qaeda were involved in the attack: “Individuals affiliated with terrorist groups, including AQIM, Ansar al-Sharia, AQAP, and the Mohammad Jamal Network, participated in the September 11, 2012, attacks.” These are official branches of al Qaeda, headed by al Qaeda operatives.
Yet the Obama administration and the media (New York Times) is still trying to brush off al Qaeda's participation in this attack. At the time the attack occurred, less than two months before the presidential election, Barack Obama had touted across the nation that “al Qaeda was on the run.” Remember that? I guess it would have made him look foolish if suddenly he admitted that al Qaeda just carried out a terrorist attack that killed four Americans. Now he looks worse than foolish, he's a liar.
Our government failed to protect Americans serving abroad, which led to the death of four Americans at the hands of al Qaeda terrorists. Our government officials then lied to the American people about the nature of the attack, because it would have hurt Barack Obama's re-election chances and Hillary Clinton's future aspirations in politics.
If this scandal involved anyone other than Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, it would be plastered over every network broadcast from now until the 2016 election. But that isn't the case, is it? The media bias is so blatant that it'd be laughable if it weren't for the fact that we lost Americans in a terrorist attack and the victims' families deserve the truth.
By the way, fifteen people “supporting the investigation or otherwise helpful to the United States” in Benghazi have been killed. While it's unsure if these killings are related to the FBI investigation, it's awfully coincidental. When will we hear from other witnesses on the ground? I'm not holding my breath.