May 12, 2014
The
Ben Rhodes e-mail has demolished the Obama administration's defense
that the White House had nothing to do with the infamous talking points
ascribing the Benghazi tragedy to a spontaneous protest over an
American-made anti-Muslim video. Even some of the White House
correspondents accustomed to carrying water for the Obama administration
clashed with White House spokesman Jay Carney, who shamelessly tried to
sell them this bill of goods. Nobody likes being played for a sucker.
Now
it is crystal-clear that the administration, right from the start, was
intimately involved in a deceptive scheme aimed at deflecting the blame
for the death of four Americans killed in the terrorist assault in
Benghazi. But rather than clarify the situation, the Rhodes e-mail has
only deepened the mystery.
What
is the reason for the frantic, concerted effort to cover up the truth
about Benghazi? Considering that it’s the cover-up rather than the deed
itself that does all the damage, wouldn’t it have been safer to
acknowledge the fact of a terrorist attack and disclose all relevant
information, putting an end to the controversy? And yet the White House
and its allies are fighting tooth and nail to prevent the American
people from knowing what happened on that fateful day. Why?
As reported by Kenneth Timmerman, top military brass
at AFRICOM headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany watched live video feed
from a Predator drone over Benghazi, which clearly showed no protests.
The CIA station chief in Tripoli, in his report to Langley, not just
indicated, but emphasized that there were no protests. Former AFRICOM’s
Deputy Intelligence Chief Brigadier General (Ret.) Robert Lovell
testified under oath to the same effect, and so did even Mike Morell,
the smarmy ex-CIA deputy director.
Former CBS news reporter Sharyl Attkisson has uncovered an e-mail
sent by Acting Assistant Secretary of State for the Near East Beth
Jones describing her conversation with Libya’s Ambassador at 9:45 am on
Sept. 12, 2012. Atkisson reported, “When [the Libyan Ambassador] said
his government suspected that former Qaddafi regime elements carried out
the attack, I told him the group that conducted the attacks – Ansar
al-Sharia – is affiliated with Islamic extremists.”
The
classic cover-up question – “What did they know, and when did they know
it?” – does not apply in this case. We know that the White House and
the State Department were fully informed about the events in Benghazi
practically from the get-go.
Why
did Hillary Clinton’s State Department resolutely turn down the many
pleas for enhancing security at the Benghazi compound with which
Ambassador Stevens bombarded his superiors, warning about the growing
extremist threat?
Why
didn’t the administration prepare for likely terrorist attacks on the
anniversary of 9/11? Didn’t they know the Islamists’ propensity to time
their attacks to mark important anniversaries, above all that of their
“glorious victory over the Great Satan”? The Bush administration knew
it and always prepared for such attacks, but Obama’s White House ignored
the danger. Why?
Why
was nothing done to rescue the besieged Americans in Benghazi? The
Pentagon insists that there were no resources available to mount a
rescue expedition. But many military experts insist it’s not true: much
could have been done to relieve the pressure on the Special Mission
Compound and the Annex.
Furthermore,
according to Kenneth Timmerman (ibid.), orders were issued, then
recalled, to deploy a 50-man Special Forces unit from Croatia that could
have reached Benghazi within hours. Who ordered that unit to stand
down, and why?
What
accounts for the stonewalling on the part of the administration? Why
has it strenuously refused to comply with the House subpoenas for its
Benghazi-related internal communications? Why have none of the Benghazi
survivors been allowed to testify to Congress about their first-hand
experiences? And why has the FBI refused to divulge the records of its
interrogations? Is the White House afraid of what those records might
tell?
President
Obama solemnly promised to track down and bring to justice the
perpetrators who harmed Americans in Benghazi. A year and a half later,
he has yet to start fulfilling his promise. It’s not that the perps
are in hiding. They live openly in Benghazi, their addresses are
well-known, and reporters have no problem getting in touch with them.
It’s only the FBI that just can’t find them. Again, is the White House
leery of what might transpire if the terrorists are allowed to talk?
Finally,
the infamous video. Why, early on September 11, did the U.S. Embassy
in Cairo suddenly, without provocation, apologize to the Muslim world
for an obscure American-made video critical of Prophet Mohammed, as if
inviting the faithful to give vent to their indignation? And four hours
later, the Arab street obliged. Why did the White House and its allies
continue to spread the video canard, knowing full well that it was a
lie?
Why
did President Obama, in his speech at the U.N. General Assembly on
September 25, two weeks after Benghazi, invoke the video seven (!)
times? Why, on September 14, did Hillary Clinton, at the coffin of
Tyrone Woods, solemnly promise the grieving father to punish the man who
she said was responsible for his son’s death – the author of the video?
Such monstrous cynicism is beneath even the lowly standards of that
woman.
There is a plausible scenario that to my mind answers all these questions:
The
2012 presidential election is around the corner. Polls predict a
nail-biter. Obama can’t run on his economic successes, for the economy
is in sorry shape. He certainly can’t run on his health care policy, as
ObamaCare is more unpopular than ever. The president’s advisers come
to the conclusion that foreign and anti-terrorist policy is his ace in
the hole.
They
devise a catchy slogan: “Osama bin Laden is dead; al-Qaeda is on the
run.” President Obama and his minions mercilessly mock Mitt Romney as a
hopelessly naive tyro who can’t hold a candle to the president, with
his vast knowledge and experience. Thus, it is vital to maintain the
fiction of Obama’s victory in the fight against the terrorist threat.
Anything that would explode this myth could be disastrous to the
president’s re-election chances.
The
U.S. intelligence obtains advance knowledge that Ansar al-Sharia,
al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Libya, is planning a major military-style attack
on the U.S. mission in Benghazi. What’s to be done? To send
reinforcements to secure the facility would inevitably cast doubt on
Obama’s boasts and, more damaging, attract attention to the U.S.
operations in Libya’s second largest city.
What
are the Americans doing there, and why hadn’t they left, like the Brits
and others, in the face of numerous terrorist threats and provocations?
There is every reason to suspect that the “diplomatic” facility was in
fact a CIA center supplying weapons to the Syrian rebels, including
many al-Qaeda loyalists. Without congressional approval, such a
clandestine operation would be illegal (although Obama would certainly
lose no sleep over such an all too familiar transgression).
But
the terrible optics of Washington arming America’s mortal enemies would
certainly be a major headache to the Victor over al-Qaeda.
Furthermore, news that Benghazi was a hotbed of terrorist activity
would call into question the merits of Obama’s little victorious war to
overthrow Gaddafi’s regime, destabilizing Libya in the process.
Clearly,
the Benghazi terrorist attack had to be kept under wraps, no matter
what, lest Obama’s campaign be blown out of the water. Thus, a decision
was made to do nothing so as not to attract attention to Benghazi – a
decision inimical to the national interests, but logical from the
political point of view. Hence the White House’s refusal to mount a
military rescue operation and its cold-hearted willingness to sacrifice
Americans in Benghazi.
As
a matter of fact, aside from the four Americans who were killed in
Benghazi, there were another three dozen U.S. personnel who were
abandoned by the Obama administration. It was only thanks to CIA
contractors Tyrone Woods and Glenn Doherty, the ex-Navy SEALs who
ignored orders and led to safety the besieged Americans, that those
people avoided the fate to which they had been consigned by their
commander-in-chief. But we have every right to speak of twoscore actual
and would-be victims rather than just four dead heroes.
Finally,
the infamous video. Considering the apology offered to the world of
Islam by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo ahead of any disturbance and the
speed with which the administration scapegoated the video, it is hard
not to suspect that it was a trump card prepared in advance and held by
the administration up its sleeve to be thrown on the table as soon as
the need arose.
To
summarize: the White House came to the conclusion that disclosure of
the truth about Benghazi would be a monumental PR disaster for Obama and
a grave threat to his re-election hopes. Consequently, it resolved to
minimize and gloss over the tragedy at any cost. And if a handful of
Americans had to be sacrificed on the altar of Obama’s political
ambition, tough. What are the lives of a handful of little people
compared to the lofty goal of saving the Obama presidency?
So was there a White House conspiracy? You bet there was.
