While flying to Boston, I was reading Fox News online when two reports caught my attention. These news pieces, combined with the former Secretary of State’s book Hard Choices and her interview with Diane Sawyer, intertwined to give me some new perspectives on the ongoing Benghazi case.
The truth has a way of sneaking through the nooks and crannies of those lying when their guard is down and it is up to us to be aware when those truths are given to us. The one question that plays on this patriotic heart is: Did the administration have any intention of bringing our Ambassador home at all? The following information leads me to the believe that our Ambassador was unknowingly involved in bad politics in which this administration never intended for him to come home.
The first piece of information came from reports that President Obama had sent troops to protect our embassies in Iraq against the ISIS group. By June 30th, the Pentagon reported to have sent approximately seven hundred troops to Iraq–yet we couldn’t get one soldier into Libya to protect our Embassy prior to the attacks on Benghazi? Seven hundred men being sent to Iraq and yet an active military that was ready and within distance to step in and rescue our Americans was ordered to stand down (more than once).
Some might say that President Obama is being proactive by sending troops in advance to Iraq to protect the embassies, but in my opinion it is an indication of how negligent he and the Secretary of State were when they ignored the pleas for more security by ambassador Stevens. In defense, others might argue that he learned his lesson from that–but learning a lesson often comes after someone has taken responsibility for his or her actions. We have yet to witness any accountability or responsibility being taken by Obama or the former Secretary of State to believe a lesson had been learned from previous “mistakes” in the Benghazi attacks.
Despite being left in a compound not fit to withstand an attack by radicals, no security was given to this particular ambassador in the way—especially not compared to the security the President is providing in Iraq.
The question remains, why didn’t Stevens get the same protection the President is giving to the ambassadors and the embassies in Iraq? Ambassador Stevens had requested it because he had reason to believe he was no longer safe. What made this administration believe that his situation was less dire then than that of Iraq now? The appearance of blatant disregard for Ambassador Stevens was never more apparent than it is being shown during this present crisis with the ISIS groups.
On July 2nd, Catherine Herridge from Fox News reported that a Libyan witnessed computers and M-16’s being taken from the compound after the 2012 Benghazi attack. According to what Hillary claimed in her book Hard Choices, the compound contained no guards due to the fact that there were no classified documents on the computers in his quarters—so this information about stolencomputers makes the supposed “spontaneous attack” seem less spontaneous and more orchestrated than originally believed. The question we ask now is, who was the conductor for what now appears more to be a calculated attack?
In a recent interview with Diane Sawyer, Hillary Clinton was asked about her role in Benghazi. Diane asked about the safety of consulate and Clinton he explained she was “not qualified” to know the design of the building or where the blast walls were and that they hired people with expertise to work on such details. Hillary’s shifting of responsibility was what we expect of the former Secretary of State–yet why wouldn’t a Secretary of State, sending an American Ambassador into a dangerous region, inquire ahead of time about the safety of the compound in which he would be residing in? And after other nations pulled out of Libya due to the instability of the area, why wouldn’t precautions be made to make sure their ambassador was in a safe compound?
Looking at photos before and after you can see the building he was not made to withstand such an attack. This is pointing to more than negligence and leading into the idea that Ambassador Stevens was potentially sent on a mission that this administration had no intention of him returning from.
With these new insights, the questions as to why Ambassador Stevens was left at the mercy of his attackers haunts patriotic Americans even more. Why would someone in charge not allow a diplomatic American to be rescued? Why would AK-47s and potentially sensitive classified information be placed in a compound not approved for rigorous safety by our leaders? And more importantly were these attackers meant to get the information and weapons from the Ambassador’s compound?
While we wait for Trey Gowdy and other members of the Oversight Committee to seek out the answers to these questions, we as Americans should not allow Benghazi to be forgotten in the face of the new scandals this administration brings to our country on a daily basis. As vigilant Americans, we can continue to seek out the truths within the lies of those who carry the weight of the truth on their shoulders.