THE BENGHAZI TERROR COVER-UP
House Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa has discovered an email from the Obama White House to Youtube, issued within hours of the start of the terrorist attack on the Benghazi that shows the Administration contacted YouTube and complained of an anti-Islamic video shortly after the terrorist attack commenced on the American mission in Benghazi, Libya, resulting in the murder of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens; U.S. Foreign Information Management Officer Sean Smith; and CIA contractors Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty. Issa views the email as an attempt to skew the story from the start, redirecting attention away from the fact of a terrorist incident to the fiction of a spontaneous uprising in response to the now infamous (and poorly done) video entitled Innocence of Muslims.
The email contradicts the White House account repeated by Administration officials, including former U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, and by the President that the Administration came to believe the incident to be a spontaneous uprising against the video because that is the account given the White House by the intelligence community. Sent at 9:11PM on the very day of the attack, September 11, the White House email proves that the Administration had already concocted the anti-Islamic video account within hours of the start of the Benghazi attack. Meanwhile we know that the Libyan government, the U.S. military leadership, and accounts coming from those on the ground in Benghazi provided the Administration with a steady stream of complementary information before the attack, during it, and after corroborating it to be an attack by an al-Qaeda-aligned group, Ansar al-Sharia.
In retrospect, the picture emerging from the evidence quite clearly suggests that to diminish the risk of scandal harming the President’s prospects for re-election, the White House ginned up a vigorous campaign to induce the American people to believe what they knew to be false: that the attack on the Benghazi mission was the result of a spontaneous uprising and not an act of terror.
Had the Administration admitted the attack to be caused by terrorists a series of questions would have arisen within months of the election, calling into question the competence of the commander-in-chief. How could the President not react promptly to dispatch military forces to intervene, save, or, if not, retaliate for the attack? When did the Administration know of the threat posed by terrorists, and why did it not secure the mission? What caused the Administration to ignore information from the mission on the security risks present and pleas from the mission, and from the Ambassador himself, for added security? Where was the President at the time of the attack and why, when briefed, did he not take immediate action?
In short, the evidence strongly suggests that the President and the Administration failed to take reasonable actions before, during, and after the attack to secure, then defend, and then retaliate. Instead, the Administration made a mockery of the American lives lost and disserved the families of those who lost loved ones by portraying the event as a riot rather than a terrorist attack. The ugly truth appears to be that the President thought more of his own political ambitions and position than he did of the Americans his Administration’s actions put in harm’s way and of the grieving families left without answers. Indeed, to this day, the Administration continues to stonewall, blocking the public release of information sought by Issa’s committee and, now, by House Benghazi Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy.
Click here to visit NewsWithViews.com home page.