Saturday, May 11, 2013


As more information is coming out, the White House has had to admit that there were references to terror in the first CIA report on the attack at Benghazi, and that those references were taken out, supposedly because there wasn't yet proof that it was a terror attack. But if being accurate was important, why did they identify the cause as an enraged crowd protesting a YouTube video? Most evidence said it was terror. The idea that video protesters were involved was only speculation based on a protest going on in Cairo. The enraged film critic scenario was untrue, yet it was repeated again and again.

But all that is coming out, and I'm sure there will be more when the White House finally stops obstructing witnesses. What I'm not hearing anyone explain is why we were being misled as to the nature of the attack. I don't buy the idea that this was to continue the Obama fiction that terror organizations were on the run and barely operational. The nature of the beast is that no American president can wipe them out. It's hard enough even finding them. We could never kill them all.

No, I think the reason for the Benghazi fiction is to hide another Obama failing: the failure to send help to Americans who were clearly in danger. I think Obama froze because the election was eight weeks away and he feared a failed rescue would cost him reelection. So rather than risk failure he decided to do nothing. Rather than risk failure he gave the order to stand down.

The disorganized protest fiction was put forward to excuse Obama's inaction. After all, it sounds bad to admit that you did nothing while a terror attack was carried out over hours and hours. 

What Obama did was despicable. He put his reelection interests ahead of his duty as president, and Americans died as a result.

And what of the military commanders who claim that "you don't send assets into an area before you know what is going on"? They were in contact with the Americans under attack. They had a drone in the sky. They knew the situation on the ground. They were told to stand down and they should have the balls to point out who gave that order.

Bottom line: the Americans in Benghazi were denied help because our president was afraid of a Black Hawk Down on his watch.


citizenlurker said...

plausible, believable.

another theory, unplausible and dont-want-to-belive-it:

I was the POTUS role in the attack to lay blame at whitey's door. To show just how out-of-step Americans are with the sensibilities of the Arabs and look how bad it's getting because of you bigots. Otherwise peace-loving Arabs are moved to heinous crimes against their nature... so America cant afford to have whitey (GOP) take back the white house...

Revisit his patronizing words about Arabs and the video in his speech... this could have been a white house planned event that got out of hand...

Isn't it the WhiteHouse that discovered the video and told the Islamic world about it?