1. A small, armed US force in Tripoli was told it did not have the authority to deploy to Benghazi in the midst of the attack. Twice. Flight time between the two cities is less than an hour. Members of the would-be rescue contingent were "furious" over this obstruction. The witnesses said they did not know who ultimately gave the "stand down" orders, or why. If it was not the Commander-in-Chief calling the shots, why not, and where was he? Whistle-blower Mark Thompson, a career counter-terrorism official at State, said he called the White House to request the immediate deployment of a Foreign Emergency Support Team (FEST) to Benghazi. He was told it was "not the right time" to do so, then was cut out of the communications loop.
2. The US' security chief in Libya, Eric Nordstrom, averred that Secretary Clinton "absolutely" would have been briefed on his (and Stevens') repeated requests for an increased security presence in Libya. This claim undercut committee Democrats' nitpicking over whether Clinton's signature appeared on the memo denying those requests. Furthermore, the Benghazi compound was operating below the bare minimum global security standard for US diplomatic missions -- despite being in an exceedingly dangerous place, and having been subjected to previous attempted attacks. Only the Secretary of State has the authority to grant exemptions for minimum security requirements.
3. Nordstrom stated that elements of the lightly-armed Libyan militia group tasked with protecting the consulate were "certainly" complicit in the attacks. No US Marines were present at the time. Hicks estimated that at least 60 terrorists swarmed into the compound during the attack. Eight months later, zero arrests have been made. If the intent was to find the truth, then why haven’t any arrests been made?
4. It took the FBI nearly a week to arrive and control the crime scene. By this time the crime scene had been compromised. In fact, many U.S. media sites had compromised the site and removed evidence.
So why would the Obama administration and State Department cover up the Benghazi attack. There are several reasons:
1. The election was less than two months away.
2. Obama campaigned on the fact that al-Qaida died along with bin-Laden, and this attack would refute that claim.
3. The attack showed the negligence of the administration and State Department who continually not only denied increased security for the embassy, they decreased security. The Benghazi embassy was only one of 14 U.S. embassies around the globe that had a security rating of high or critical in all 6 state department classifications. And to make matters worse, the State Department planned on making the Libya Embassy a permanent outpost. So this only further questions light and reduced security at the embassy.
4. If the truth about the terrorist attack were to come to light, then Obama’s true intentions were premeditated from the get go – that he never intended to try to save those being attacked. If he sent in reinforcements, it would only admit the attack was not spontaneous over a YouTube video, but was in fact, a terror attack. Think about it, the decision to send reinforcements should have been an easy one to make. If they did not get to Benghazi in time, so be it. But at minimum reinforcements could have protected the crime scene.
I do not know if they will ever tie some of these disturbing events to the President or Clinton. But it is obvious from a circumstantial case that these two were not only complicit in the aftermath to cover up of the Benghazi attack, they were planning to cover up the incident from the onset.