Implications of Benghazi and the White House Cover-Up


On Friday, the Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Darrell Issa subpoenaed Secretary of State John Kerry regarding newly released documents that revealed a direct link to the White House in the Benghazi cover-up. The documents show, “then-White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes and other Obama adminstration public relations officials attempted to orchestrate a campaign to ‘reinforce’ President Obama and to portray the Benghazi consulate terrorist attack as being rooted in a n internet video, and not a failure of policy”.

These newly released documents were not revealed until the government watchdog group Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Meaning, it has taken over 19 months, multiple subpoena’s and finally a lawsuit to compel the State Department and the White House into releasing just a fragment of these documents. Yet, the implications of Benghazi are just now beginning to rise to the surface of corruption in the form of a massive cover-up involving multiple top ranking individuals within the White House.

In light of these new developments the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, announced Friday that the House will vote on establishing a select committee to investigate the September 11th attack on our Embassy in Benghazi, Libya. The reason a bi-partisan select committee is needed is because of the politically motivated and contradictory statements made by the officials who were involved.

For instance, just yesterday a newly released government email entitled Libya Update from Beth Jones indicated that within hours of the September 11th 2012 attack on Americans in Benghazi, Libya: the State Department had concluded with certainty that the Islamic militia terrorist group, Ansar al Sharia, was to blame. According to the email by Beth Jones, who was then-Assistant Secretary of State to Hillary Clinton, [Jones] spoke to Libya’s Ambassador on September 12th in which Jones told the Ambassador that Ansar al Sharia had conducted the attacks.

The private, internal communication email directly contradicts the message that President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney repeated publicly over the course of the next several weeks. That message maintaining a lie that an anti-Islamic YouTube video inspired a spontaneous demonstration that escalated into violence.

To further contradict the claim that the Benghazi attack was due to a spontaneous demonstration over a YouTube video is the testimony given yesterday during the House Government Oversight Committee hearing from former Intelligence Director of U.S. Africa Command Robert Lovell. Lovell stated that, “The military could have made a response of some sort” but was hindered due to “the desires of the State Department” as the State was ultimately in control at the time.

As Lovell emotionally summed it up, for the first time in his entire military career he could not “run to the sound of the guns”. For it was “not what the State Department did, but what they didn’t do” that resulted in the death of four Americans that night.

The State Departments deliberate action to choose not to respond that night is due directly to political motivations surrounding the 2012 Presidential elections. This point cannot be underscored for its importance and meaning to Barack Obama’s re-election campaign. In his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention on September 6th 2012, just 5 days before the Benghazi attacks, Obama declared “al-Qaida is on the path to defeat and Osama bin Laden is dead”.

This narrative is why politics were given precedent over the truth and more importantly the lives of 4 Americans. To admit the attack on our Embassy was due to terrorism was to admit that Obama’s foreign policy was a failure. To respond to the attack by using our military was to admit that al-Qaida was not “on the run” and had this information been released before the 2012 election it would have cost Obama his presidency. Instead it cost the lives of 4 Americans.

The implications of Benghazi should been seen as this: The cost of becoming re-elected was more important than saving the lives of U.S. Ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens,Tyrone Woods, Sean Smith and Glen Doherty. An election at the cost of the lives of American citizens was worth it in the eyes of President Barack Obama.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s