The Real Meaning of the Benghazi Cover-Up
by Rudy Cajka on May 11, 2013 at 10:38 AM
After many months of stories, investigations, obfuscations, liberal media biased reporting (and lack thereof) and political infighting, this week's House of Representative's hearings are finally starting to provide some solid information. We have now heard from the top U.S. official at the Libyan Embassy, Gregory Hicks, that there was no doubt on Sept. 11, 2012 that a terrorist attack was perpetrated on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. This information was relayed directly to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and she was told that it was a terrorist attack.
There should be no doubt, as well, that the White House and President Obama were immediately informed that this was a terrorist attack. Everyone at the top echelons of the U.S. Government, including Obama, Clinton and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta knew this was a terrorist attack on the evening of September 11, 2012.
There are many different and separate elements and questions about this entire affair, all of which have come under some scrutiny. Some of these are:
- What was the level of security at the Bengazi site and was it sufficient to protect the Ambassador and his staff?
- What was the extent of the requests for additional security at this site and what happened to those request?
- After the reported death of Ambassador Stevens, could the U.S. Military have sent help to the Consulate to prevent further deaths and injuries during the 2nd wave of the attacks?
- Why was a team of special operations personnel under the command of Lt. Colonel Gibson told to not fly to Benghazi to support the Consulate personnel?
- Why did U.S. Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, state in sworn testimony to Sen. Lindsay Graham that the military gave no such order to Lt. Colonel Gibson to "stand down"?
- Why did U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice announce to the world, 5 days after the attacks at Benghazi, that the whole episode was the result of an "anti-Muslim video produced in the United States"?
- Why did the President persist in this ridiculous anti-Muslim video story for weeks following the attacks at Benghazi?
- Why did the U.S Intelligence Agency's assessments of what happened, in the form of unclassified media talking points, get re-written by White House and State Department political operatives to totally mislead the American people?
There are many more questions about Benghazi, but to me, the most important questions are:
- Why did the President of the United States and the Secretary of State consistently deliberately lie to the America people about the substance and nature of the Benghazi attack on America?
- Why does the American media to this day still refuse to characterize all of the presidential statements made in the days following the Benghazi terrorist attacks as blatant lies by the President of the United States?
What Should Congress Do Now?
The United States Congress now has an important duty to the American people to organize and appoint a Select Committee to further investigate the unanswered questions surrounding the Benghazi affair. This committee should call on everyone from the White House, the State Department and the Intelligence agencies to testify and provide all the answers to the unanswered questions about the Benghazi affair. The Republicans in Congress, and especially Speaker John Boehner must take the lead on this.
This is speculation on my part, but I have no doubt that the Select Committee will ultimately find out that:
- President Obama gave the military orders to "stand down" in Benghazi because permitting the military to move on Sept. 11 would have been tantamount to admitting that a major terrorist attack was underway.
- Obama then blatantly lied to the American people on numerous occasions about what really happened at Benghazi.
- Obama's lies were told because he did not want to admit, during the course of a presidential election campaign, that Al Qaida and worldwide terrorism were alive and well.
- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was deeply involved in the conspiracy of lies, partly to protect Obama's election narrative that "GM is alive and Osama is dead" and partly to protect her incompetence in providing adequate security for overseas State Department personnel.
Should Obama be Impeached?
No American President should be able to lie to the America public and get away with it. Richard Nixon and his close advisors lied consistently about the Watergate break-in and he was impeached in the House and very likely would have been convicted by the Senate, except for his resignation from office. Bill Clinton was impeached by the House for perjury and obstruction of justice related to his affair with Monica Lewinski, but was spared conviction by the Senate because his lies were "only about sex".
Barack Obama's actions and orders shortly after hearing about the terrorist attacks in Benghazi on the night of Sept. 11 should prompt House Republicans to establish an Impeachment Committee to draw up articles of Impeachment. The House of Representatives should be able to pass an Impeachment Bill and move the matter to the Senate. In today's partisan political world, it is not likely that the Senate would ever convict Barack Obama of anything, including misdeeds in office and lying to the American people just to win an election. However, the lies and misdeeds of Obama, Clinton and others surrounding the Benghazi terrorist attacks and the deaths of the four Americans should never be forgotten. A House of Representatives Impeachment Bill and a Senate trial against Obama will ensure that won't happen.