STRIKE ONE: PRE-TERRORIST ATTACK
What events occurred prior to the Benghazi terrorist attack that should have mandated the Commander-in-Chief to bring our personnel home?
- The British vacated Libya knowing they could not adequately protect their staff.
- The American Red Cross removed its staff due to lack of adequate security.
- There were 2 prior attacks, one on April 6 and one on June 6.
- Congressional testimony later verified that there were requests from our State Department staff in Libya to increase security. These requests were denied, and the message from the Administration was that we would respond after an incident occurred.
- There was a special security team of Seals and Rangers based in Libya. They were ordered to leave the country in August. The leader of this security team implored the administration to allow them to stay. They were refused that request. Later, in an interview, the team leader stated that, had they been allowed to stay, they may have deterred the terrible consequences that cost 4 American lives.
- Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, leader of al-Qaeda, put out a video on September 10, urging that an act of revenge be carried out on September 11 for the death of a Libyan terrorist several months earlier. Would a competent Commander-in-Chief have taken that threat seriously?
STRIKE TWO: DURING TERRORIST ATTACK
What events during the attack demonstrate a lack of competence and total disregard for the protection of our staff in Libya by the Commander-in-Chief?
- We now know that there were emails sent from the Consulate in Benghazi by staff members to the State Department, CIA, and White House. This was contemporaneous with the attack.
- The Commander-in-Chief has, to this day, had no explanation for what he was doing on the night of the attack as it was happening.
- We do know he left for Las Vegas the next day for a fund-raiser and campaigning.
- The Administration attempted to “sell” a false story that they knew was false about a meaningless 15 minute video causing a spontaneous violent disruption at the Consulate.
- The Secretary of Defense later conveyed a story through the media about having military capability ordered to be in Italy at the time of the attack to prepare for defense of the Consulate. Was there ever an order to defend the Consulate? No. Apparently, the loss of 4 lives was preferable to sending in American military force to protect American sovereign territory.
- General Petraeus has now confirmed that he knew this was a terrorist attack by Ansar Al-Sharia, an A-Qaeda affiliated terrorist group. There were grenades, automatic weapons, and other armaments that clearly were not part of a “spontaneous” event. The CIA, as stated by General Petraeus, discussed this as a terrorist attack.
STRIKE THREE: POST-TERRORIST ATTACK
- The Commander-in-Chief has been more concerned about defending U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice than about the devastating harm done at the Benghazi Consulate. He says that Republicans such as John McCain who criticize Ambassador Rice will have Barack Obama to deal with. What Barack Obama is avoiding are the lies told by Ambassador Rice about the 15 minute video being the cause of the violence. She completely distorted the truth for political reasons and should be held accountable for that.
- Secretary of State Hilary Clinton took responsibility for the response by the United States as if to have that admission put the issue to rest. That will not put the issue to rest, since both she and Rice take their orders from Barack Obama.
- Vice-President Biden claimed in the debate against Congressman Paul Ryan that the CIA intelligence was the basis of the administration believing that the attack resulted from outrage about the video. That lie has now been put to rest, since the CIA saw this as a terrorist attack, as testified to by General Petraeus.
- We now see that Barack Obama was protecting the false view that we can reside in an Islamic or Arabic country without need for force. As we have learned, he was wrong.
The misguided policy of this administration that we can negotiate with terrorists or Islamic Jihadists has now been disintegrated beyond repair. The veneer of this delusional policy has come off. It is now time for the Commander-in-Chief to behave as that job requires under the Constitution and protect the national security and safety of those who serve this nation and its citizens.
That realization still eludes this President. His protection of Islam is more important than the protection of our public servants in other countries, as demonstrated in Libya on 9/11/12.
When we see this administration remove the phrase “Islamist” or “Islamic Jihadists” or “Islamic Fundamentalists” from the annual report on terrorism by the CIA and be the Department of State, the handwriting is on the wall.
The administration will protect its image of Islam, regardless of the facts. The problem is Obama is Commander-in Chief. The next chapter will show us how far he is willing to go to protect Islamic terrorism at the expense of the American people. Benghazi and its aftermath are not encouraging.
