By Douglas V. Gibbs
There is no doubt that ideology was behind the lies perpetuated by the democrats over the murder of four Americans at the Benghazi consulate in Libya on September 11, 2012. The narrative we were receiving from the liberal democrats and the complicit mainstream media was that since Osama bin-Laden was dead, Obama had succeeded in purging the peril of al-Qaeda from our midst. The War on Terror was over, and it was all because of Obama. If terrorism was to emerge it would conflict with their tale, so the truth must be altered to fit the narrative. In Benghazi the attack that killed Ambassador Stevens, and three SEALS, had to be covered up, or at least the part that it was caused by terrorists had to be. The liberal left blames America first, and the cover-up sought to do exactly that. Instead of reporting that terrorism was to blame, a story about some mean ol' American's anti-Islam film was concocted. The CIA, according to Director Petraeus, recognized that the attack was due to terrorism, not a spontaneous protest over an obscure anti-Islam video, as we were being told. However, determined to move attention away from the national security failures of the Obama administration, and for the events to fit their "we are at peace with Islam because Obama is nice to them" narrative, the story regarding the video was stuck with, and even now, is being used as the excuse for the violence in not only Benghazi, but all over the Middle East on September 11, 2012.
Never mind that the date was the anniversary of Islam's act of war against the United States in 2001.
Never mind that Ambassador Stevens asked for additional security and it was denied.
Never mind that the CIA facility, where the SEALs came from, requested to engage and were told to stand-down.
Never mind that Harry Reid is refusing to allow a Senate Panel investigate what happened in Benghazi.
Never mind that it has come out that the White House actually edited the CIA talking points in order to leave out that the CIA had determined the attack on Benghazi was a terrorist attack.
But is protecting the narrative the only reason the democrats have worked feverishly to cover up the truth? Is that the only reason Obama's team watched live via the camera aboard a drone the death of four Americans in Libya?
The media is still trying to protect the Obama administration from the scandal, but as the David Petraeus testimony, and sex scandal investigation, unfolds, more stunning news is being revealed.
If Obama was a Republican, he would have been impeached, but the democrats are circling the wagons, and it is turning out that from their point of view, they have a very good reason, and that deeper reason is not just simply for the sake of covering up the lies about Benghazi by the liberal left. It turns out there was more going on.
Questions have arisen. Why, when there were previous attacks on our consulate in Benghazi, and evidence was revealing the city was becoming an al-Qaeda stronghold, did we keep the consulate open? Why did the federal government not provide added security when Ambassador Stevens pleaded for it? Why was he not better protected, when it was known he was on an al-Qaeda hit list? Ambassador Stevens sent to Hillary Clinton’s office at the State Department communications pointing out that there were “approximately ten Islamist militias and AQ training camps within Benghazi, but that was ignored. And the most important question of all, why did the administration for weeks try to argue that this was the result of a spontaneous demonstration that got out of hand, which was, as Susan Rice called it, a copy-cat demonstration of the one earlier in the day in Egypt, supposedly over a little seen anti-Muslim video trailer made in the U.S.?
Then, a new scandal appeared, which the press is trying to use to get everyone's minds off of Benghazi. But the problem for them is that the Petraeus adultery scandal is bringing these issues to the forefront, with an emboldened Republican Party that doesn’t believe the President when he says he knew nothing about the Petraeus affair until the day after the election.
The timing was certainly convenient - right after the election, but before Petraeus was to testify regarding Benghazi.
Obama claims he knows nothing about anything. Attorney General Eric Holder knew about the affair and the investigation in late summer, and the FBI knew about it at least since May, yet the President was kept in the dark that his CIA director was under investigation? Is that believable? Was the head of the CIA actually left in a vulnerable position while the President of the United States was unaware? Is that kind of incompetence truly present in this administration?
It is turning out that Obama did want the sex scandal to divert everyone's attention away from Benghazi. It turns out that he had more to hide than his mere incompetence It seems that the Fast and Furious scandal that put American guns into the hands of Mexican drug cartels was not the only America gun giveaway that Obama was mixed up in. In Libya, American weapons were being put into the hands of Libyan terrorists, who wound up using them against Americans in the Benghazi attack.
Ambassador Stevens may have been in Benghazi to negotiate for the return of an American weapons’ system. The lack of security may point to the possibility that Stevens was a CIA operative sent to bring back the wayward weapons, not just a diplomat. The terrorists may have even attacked the embassy in order to seize the American weapons stored there from the rebel-arming program.
The Benghazi cover-up is a worse presidential scandal than Watergate, because four Americans lost their lives. The salacious sex scandal with General Petraeus, something the democrats hoped would turn people's attention away from Benghazi, actually did the opposite. Before the sex scandal, Benghazi was not receiving anywhere near the attention that Watergate did. Now, it is, and the facts are slowly surfacing.
Obama is not just trying to cover-up the terrorist nature of the attack on Benghazi, but that the administration was arming the terrorists, and that those American guns were used to kill Ambassador Stevens and the SEALs.
President Obama was trying to cover-up that he has more blood on his hands than even conservatives believed.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Harry Reid Refuses to Allow Senate Panel to Investigate Benghazi - Weasel Zippers
White House denies editing talking points on Benghazi Attack, Contradicting Petraeus - New York Post
Republicans Say Susan Rice Must Testify on Benghazi Statements - Yahoo! News
Pat Buchanan: Who fed Susan the Benghazi bullhockey? - Human Events
Sex Scandal Reveals Why There is a Benghazi Coverup - Townhall
Benghazi Betrayal May be a Cover-Up of American Weapons in Hands of Terrorists - RightWing News
No comments:
Post a Comment