Friday, October 23, 2015

The Truth About Benghazi

After Hillary Clinton’s eight plus hour testimony we can learn a few things. Sure, the only thing liberals are concerned about was Clinton’s demeanor and that she seems to be the central focus of the committee’s investigation. They can care less what come out of her mouth. Clinton may have acted well, but that was all it was – an act. There are several things we learned and in turn, more things that do not make any sense.

First, we learned Clinton knew the evening of the attack it was planned and more importantly it was carried out by al-Qaida. She said as much in emails to her family and the Egyptian head of state. She knew the attack did not grow out of a protest over a film, which incidentally happened in Tunisia and Egypt just days earlier. The next day, Clinton issued a very carefully worded statement and the focus was around one sentence which I will paraphrase: Some believe the attack grew out of protest over an anti-Muslim film. The word “some” is what is important here. Usually this type of statement is followed up by a statement such as: “but I believe” or “but others believe”. This did not happen. A week after the attack, it would be easy to conclude that the “some” Clinton was referring to was in fact the White House. They continuously pushed the talking points that the attack occurred because of a film. And this makes some sense, Obama had a motive to do so. The election was just 7 weeks away and Obama campaigned on the fact that al-Qaida was decimated following the killing of bin-Laden. Hence, an al-Qaida attack would prove this narrative false. It was clear Clinton knew the truth, but yet she hid behind the Obama administration narrative and did nothing. So the real question is why didn’t Clinton stand up to the Obama administration and tell the truth? The answer to that is simple, even though she was only going to be the Secretary of State until the end of the year, she had bigger aspirations and was running for President. Besides, the State Department was warned dozens of times by Ambassador Stevens of the deteriorating situation in Libya and that would look bad on her watch. So Clinton came out publicly preaching the film theory to the public. We know this was a lie and cover up.

Secondly, we learned that the State Department decided that it was not going to rebuild the Libya embassy immediately following the attack. On the surface, this makes sense, it would be too dangerous to rebuild an embassy. But think about this one. Just days and weeks earlier the Tunisia and Egyptian embassies were attacked, but those embassies remain. The difference is that the Tunisia and Egyptian attacks developed over protests of that film. So if Clinton really believed the Libya attack was over the film, it is very possible she would have rebuild the embassy. After all, her emails showed how proud she and the Obama administration were over the fall of Qaddafi. So it is a hasty decision to remove the embassy and concede Libya is more unstable after the fall of Qaddafi than before. So it also begs to reason, was Clinton aware of any Ambassador Stevens requests for more security?

Thirdly, maybe Clinton was not aware of the constant requests for more security and the devolving situation in the proximity of the Benghazi embassy. But we know a few things. Stevens was smart and he was experienced – so he knew the squeaky wheel usually gets what it needs. That will explain why he made several hundred requests for more security. It is hard to believe that Stevens would not have access to Clinton’s personal email, but let’s say it is true. Clinton said Stevens had other ways to contact her. So that means he had her personal phone number? This is a logical assumption. So, it would be hard to believe that Stevens did not call Clinton personally when dozens of requests for more security were ignored. As I stated, Stevens was experienced and knew how to play the game. It only begs to reason he followed this algorithm – you keep moving up the leadership ladder until you get what you need. Also, after close calls at the Tunisia and Egypt embassies one would think that Stevens request for more security would be granted since they held more credence. And one would think that help would be moved into close proximity to the Mediterranean region after all the instability. So it makes little sense that the Libya security situation was not on the Secretary State’s radar.

Fourth, not one person was fired or reprimanded over the attack. Obviously someone dropped the ball over security, right? By some accounts there were 600 requests for more security and the one that reached Clinton – she thought was a joke. There were warning signs in Tunisia and Egypt, but still no extra security. This could only mean one thing – there was a cover up happening and firings and reprimands would only attract attention to the issue.

Fifth, and most puzzling, why didn’t the administration or State Department send help? It does not matter if they would get there in time. They could control the crime scene; prevent looting; recover bodies; help the wounded; start tracking the terrorists; and dozens of other things. It makes no sense to not send any help, you have nothing to lose and everything to gain. This too sounds like a move to cover up the actual events that transpired that evening. How? Well, it let the terrorist get away, it let terrorists loot the embassy of any evidence, and it let the crime scene be cross contaminated. Most importantly, if help got there on time, it would cover up the fact the attack was planned. The military never leaves anyone behind. Several men died going after deserter Private Bergdahl. If we have dangerous missions to save a deserter then why not go and try to protect American sovereignty. This to me is the most conspicuous thing that about the whole Benghazi cover up.

Sixth, Clinton claimed 90 to 95% of her emails are archived on the State Department site. None of this has been corroborated by the State Department which will be taken up by the FBI and her email server.

Can Clinton be trusted to be truthful, transparent, responsible, and to make good decisions as our commander in chief? Or will she be the same lying, deceitful, and irresponsible leader who will take credit for other’s successes and blame others for her failures? Sound familiar, it should, it is four more years of Obama. For instance, both Obama and Clinton took credit for Qadaffi’s fall in Libya, but once the security situation worsened in Libya, they pointed their fingers at others. That is their pitiful leadership abilities.

No comments:

Post a Comment