Most of us have used the analogy that the cover up behind the attacks on September 11, 2012 in Benghazi has the characteristics of Watergate. Watergate became the scandal when it was discovered that then President Richard Nixon was involved personally with the knowledge of the break-in at the Democratic National Committee’s office in the Watergate Plaza building. Prior to that revelation representatives in office on both sides of the isle did not want to make a big deal of the initial demands of impeachment because quite frankly this was not the first time something of this nature had taken place. The Democrats did not want Spiro Agnew to be the next President if Nixon was impeached so it was only after Agnew resigned as Vice President for fear of federal prosecution that Democrats rejoiced louder for Nixon’s impeachment. Nixon’s actions caused his resignation and rightly so in the grand scheme of things. The national media and press had this scandal on every news hour and front pages of all the papers for months. On August 9th, 1974 news anchor for ABC Sam Donaldson actually was the first journalist to break the news on national television that President Nixon was set to resign from office at 9 p.m. (ET) that evening. Can we say the same about this same media and their coverage about Benghazi? No.
Let’s cover a few important facts of what has been uncovered at this point but not seen on the mainstream media news coverage:
Two foreign Policy reporters Harald Doornbos and Jenan Moussa recovered letters on the ground inside the compound on Oct. 26, more than a month after FBI agents collected evidence at the site (and also more than a month after CNN reporters found Ambassador Steven’s diary). In those letters were the following facts: On Sept. 11th a letter addressed to Mohamed Obeidi, the head of the Libyan Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Benghazi stated the following:
September 9, 2012, the U.S. mission requested additional police support at our compound for the duration of U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens’ visit,” the letter states. “We requested daily, twenty-four hour police protection at the front and rear of the U.S. mission as well as a roving patrol. In addition we requested the services of a police explosive detection dog.”
Even more troubling in the letters was the following information:
“Finally, early this morning at 0643, September 11, 2012, one of our diligent guards made a troubling report, near our main gate a member of the police force was seen in the upper level of a building across from our compound. It is reported that this person was photographing the inside of the U.S. special mission and furthermore that this person was part of the police unit sent to protect the mission.”
If you recall this last statement above would coincide with an internet post written by one of the victims (Air Force veteran Sean Smith), who was working as a technology officer when he was killed in the Benghazi attack. Earlier on Sept. 11, he’d mused on an online gaming website: “Assuming we don’t die tonight. We saw one of our ‘police’ that guard the compound taking pictures.”
We also know based on the recent Capitol Hill testimony (including that of now disgraced former CIA head General David Petraeus) that U.S. officials knew the attacks in Benghazi were linked to terrorist groups yet 5 days after these attacks on Sept. 11th Ambassador Susan Rice would go on five Sunday talk shows and claim it was “in fact” a spontaneous action caused by a video. Now classified as “talking points” provided to her by someone in the Obama administration. General Petraeus himself stated in his testimony last week that the talking points for what actually occurred at the consulate in Benghazi were changed from a terrorist attack link with al Qaeda to blaming a trailer for a video. Who changed the talking points is now the new question that the Obama administration is tap dancing around. Reports today suggest the White House only changed one word on the talk points and that was “consulate” changed to “diplomatic facility” as per senior advisor Ben Rhodes.
After his re-election President Obama holds a press conference and makes the statement to one of the reporters (Jonathan Karl): “And we’re after an election now. I think it is important for us to find out exactly what happened in Benghazi, and I’m happy to cooperate in any ways that Congress wants”. Before his re-election the media worked hand in hand with the administration to ignore the story all together. Had Obama been a Republican this would have never happened.
This administration touts in front of the camera that there is no cover up and even goes as far as blaming Republicans asking the tough questions for participating in a “witch hunt”. If that is truly the case, and all information has been provided then why has the following taken place:
AFRICOM General Carter Ham was at the Pentagon the day of the attacks (September 11th) on the consulate and ordered an unarmed drone to the facility immediately upon learning of the events unfolding. Congressman Jason Chaffetz traveled with General Ham to the sites of the attacks (and prior to the FBI visits) and was accompanied by an attorney representing the Obama administration (if you’ve got nothing to hide why the presence of the attorney?).
Chaffetz uncovered that forces were available to assist Ambassador Stevens and the 3 other Americans yet no one was deployed to help in the attacks. General Ham would also reiterate that same narrative to Chaffetz. However, when this report came to the attention of the public it was Defense Secretary Leon Panetta that would decry General Ham was mistaken and told reporters during a press conference: “(The) basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place. And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.”
What is curious to note with General Ham is shortly after the revelations were exposed, Panetta announced a replacement for General Ham and that Ham suddenly decided to “retire” 3 years early than his projected date. Additionally, the suggestion by Panetta that General Ham was part of a “consensus” in determining the situation in the attacks on the consulate was too risky to intervene is being debunked by a Pentagon source who stated: “the tri-party consultation described by Panetta is unlikely at best and disingenuous at worst, because such decisions in the military are not taken by “consensus.”
Congressman Trey Gowdy represents my home state of South Carolina in Congress as well as Senator Lindsey Graham. Gowdy is bold, unapologetic and demands the truth when he sits in the congressional hearings. Graham (considered a RINO by many in the state) has also showed a stronger side suggesting he will get to the bottom of the cover-up and fight hard to block any notion that Susan Rice would be promoted to Secretary of State when Hillary Clinton leaves office at the end of this term. Tough questions are asked and they are most certainly warranted when we discuss the obvious cover up taking place with this administration and the tragic events on September 11, 2012, that lead to the deaths of 4 (four) brave Americans in Benghazi, Libya. It is clear that the only way we will hear the truth about what happened in Benghazi is to pay attention to the hearings and listen to the Republican side of the equation because the main stream media and Democrats are feverously hiding the facts from becoming exposed. Begs to question…. Why?
Americans should be very concerned about the events surrounding the cover up on the Benghazi attacks. This is not about an extra marital affair as the MSM focuses on daily, nor is it about the loss of the elections by the GOP and we are just spouting sour grapes. This is a full fledge conspiracy that makes Watergate look like a high school rumor mill conversation. No one died in the Watergate scandal but four Americans died in Benghazi. We deserve the truth because of our Government is willing to lie about this tragedy; they will most certainly be empowered to lie to us about even bigger issues we will face. That should concern us all, no matter what side of the fence in politics we lean towards.