Articles Comments

SENTRY JOURNAL » Uncategorized » Forgetting Benghazi

Forgetting Benghazi

There is a lot being said right now about Benghazi in Washington.  Granted, it’s not being said by the White House and it’s not being said by democrats.  Try finding a reference to Benghazi on the HuffPo, CNN, MSNBC, or NYTimes websites without using the search feature and you’ll be out of luck.  The NYTimes hasn’t written anything on Benghazi in months, even though Benghazi is the 5th most searched topic on their website.  CNN has the story buried, but it’s the 4th most popular search on their website.  It’s interesting how terrorist raids on embassies and ruthless serial killer abortion doctors aren’t newsworthy.

People are talking though.  It’s sad, but 6 months after the murder of 4 Americans, we still haven’t been given the truth by the State Department of this Administration.  When Sec. Clinton was asked to explain why the American people were deceived into thinking that this was a protest she responded “What difference, at this point, does it make”.  When pressed about the inaccuracies in the days after the attack Jay Carney told us that it was “too early to talk about Benghazi” and last week he told us that the Benghazi attack “happened a long time ago”.  They simply don’t walk to talk about it – and there’s good reason not to.

I posted on November 1st my questions surrounding the timeline of Benghazi.  You can find it here:

Even in November of 2012 I was able to see there was something more than was being told to us.  Sadly, Carney was right – this was a long time ago and too many people have forgotten the details surrounding the event.  The context of the event may shed light on why the administration is so tightlipped.  Let us rewind with the help of Ed Morrissey:

Recall that the attack took place in the middle of the general election, just a couple of weeks after the party conventions. Obama and the Democrats had just argued that the administration’s foreign-policy successes, including the intervention in Libya, showed that America had a steady and seasoned commander-in-chief, and that voters should think twice before electing an untried Mitt Romney.

On the ground in Benghazi, however, the truth was that the sudden vacuum of power had liberated not eastern Libya but the Islamist terrorist networks that had long operated there. Militias competed with the weak central government’s forces for control of Benghazi, and terrorists ran much of what lay outside of the city. Other Western nations packed up their diplomatic installations and headed back to Tripoli, but not the United States. Instead, the U.S. kept its consulate open while reducing its security forces even in the face of intelligence of increasing danger, and escalating attacks on Western assets. …

To ask Clinton’s question again, what difference at this point would it have made? It’s possible that the team could have gotten on the ground in time to repel the second attack, although the timing would have been close. If the hearings focus on this one issue, though, it will miss the real failures in Benghazi.

The administration’s intervention in Libya created a power vacuum in eastern Libya, which it refused to acknowledge, and which eventually led not just to this attack but the near-sacking of Mali, which was prevented only by the French military. Instead, State under Clinton reduced the security at this outpost while our allies fled the city, even while nearby terrorist attacks increased. No one in State or the White House prepared for the obvious al Qaeda interest in attacking vulnerable American assets on the anniversary of 9/11. When the inevitable happened, rather than putting all our assets in play to fight the terrorists, the first impulse of Obama and Clinton seems to have been to deny that a terrorist attack had taken place at all as a means of covering up the gross incompetence of the past year in Libya.

With the administration beating war drums over the use of chemical weapons in Syria, if somewhat half-heartedly, a full and honest accounting of Benghazi and the Obama administration’s Libya policies in general makes a great deal of difference at this or any other point.

Well put by Ed.  The President didn’t want to go into the election that he had set up heavily on foreign policy (specifically in the Mideast) to go down in flames because we got caught with our pants down by terrorists.  For days the Administration tried to sweep it under the rug with their pathetic argument that this was just a riot against an anti-Muslim video that nobody had seen – never mind that this was on the anniversary of 9/11.

The President had to come up with the “spontaneous riot gone bad” rhetoric because admitting that this was a terrorist attack would have meant that we failed.  We failed to foresee it, we failed to stop it, and we failed to even respond to it while it was happening.  It would also have revealed that the great success of toppling the Gaddafi regime wasn’t the triumph he had trumpeted – much like the Egyptian situation.  It turns out that the Mideast is worse off now than it was 4 years ago.

Now we’re about to hear more information on what ACTUALLY happened, and this may present a dereliction of duty for the purposes of saving political face.  If that’s the case then the President will suffer greatly – but only in popular opinion polls because he already won the election.  Sadly, even if we find out that the President gave the order to stand down instead of respond to the terrorist attack on our embassy, I have my doubt that the Americans will care.  That did “happen a long time ago” and our attention span for politics is about as long as our resilience against armed entrance into our homes is strong.

Share
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
RightHandMan

Written by

Yeah, I tweet. If you want to follow me on Twitter, just click on the link below. I hope you do.

Filed under: Uncategorized

opinions powered by SendLove.to
Comments
  • Steve Dennis May 7, 2013 at 6:06 PM

    Great post RHM! It was a long time ago when you think about how it has been months and we still don’t have any answers. The MSM was complicit in this as well; remember that before the election instead of focusing on what happened the MSM attacked Romney as being out of line for commenting on the attack? We had four dead Americans and all the MSM could talk about was Romney and I find it deplorable.
    Steve Dennis recently posted..Benghazi: Only Barack Obama could have ordered the Special Ops in Tripoli to stand downMy Profile

  • Bunkerville May 7, 2013 at 6:53 PM

    Clinton gave us a gift with the sound bite, “what does it matter”. Just might come back around. Low information folks like sound bites.

  • proof May 7, 2013 at 8:36 PM

    I came to the conclusion some time ago, that if the administration didn’t want to be forthcoming with the facts, we should stop giving them the benefit of the doubt and just assume the very worst, until proven otherwise.
    proof recently posted..Who’s in YOUR Wallet?My Profile

  • LD Jackson May 8, 2013 at 6:14 AM

    I can tell you for a fact that this administration’s liberal supporters care nothing about Benghazi. In my own post on this, one of them insists the Republicans are only bringing it up to hurt Hillary Clinton because she is in such a good position to run for President in 2016. The excuses they offer continue to astound me. Their favorite has to either be that Bush had 69 embassy deaths under his watch, or that the GOP is at fault because they cut funding for embassy security. Liberals absolutely refuse to acknowledge the seriousness of what happened on September 11, 2012.
    LD Jackson recently posted..Benghazi – Will The Truth Finally Be Told?My Profile

    • proof May 8, 2013 at 10:23 AM

      Eight months ago, the libs were using the same talking point, only it was just to hurt Obama’s re-election, not Hillary in 2016.

      If you’re waiting for liberals to debate you on principle about accountability, I’m sure the Easter bunny and tooth fairy both have good news for you!
      proof recently posted..“Seattle to Melt Buyback Guns into Peace Bricks”My Profile

  • Jim at Asylum Watch May 8, 2013 at 4:19 PM

    The two ex-Navy Seals were intentionally allowed to die. When Panetta said that they had no forces that couhave gotten there in time, i got sick to my stomach. Neither he or Dempsey knew at 5:00 or 6:00 or 7:00 or 8:00 whether the fire fight was going to go on for one more hour or 24 more hours. They didn’t lift a finger. Also, they had two drones watching the battle. One drone could have been used to take out the mortar kamakazi style. That order wasn’t given either. The President and several other high officials deserve to be tried for treason.
    Jim at Asylum Watch recently posted..Thanks for the Great Recovery, Mr. President!My Profile

  • TexasFred May 8, 2013 at 4:28 PM

    Regarding Benghazi, I don’t know what the final outcome of this will be, the Dems and Mainstream Media are doing everything possible to render these hearings useless and uncalled for.

    Libtards will buy that from the Dems and Media, they really ARE that stupid.

    This hearing, and its outcome, will be a look into the soul of America and will give the astute observer a good look at where America is and where it’s going.

    That will only matter to people like us my friends, the Libs don’t care, and sadly, many thought to be on the RIGHT are apathetic and the future of freedom IS in the balance…

    I’m Fred Witzell, author of The TexasFred Blog, and this is MY most honest belief!
    TexasFred recently posted..GOP Benghazi probe stokes political controversyMy Profile

  • Infidel de Manahatta May 8, 2013 at 4:56 PM

    Unfortunately the MSM will sweep this under the rug and try their best to cover it up and make it a nonstory.

    Fox will cover it, but that just gives everyone else ammunition. “See, Fox, which isn’t a real news network anyway is covering it.”

    The truth will come up not that anyone will cover it.
    Infidel de Manahatta recently posted..An Encounter with Hollywood RoyaltyMy Profile