The Benghazi ‘Blame Game’ and How It Affects You
It’s
been over six weeks since the 9/11 terrorist attack in Benghazi that
killed four of our fellow Americans, including ambassador Chris Stevens.
Yet, the more the facts unfold, the more disturbing they become. Many
Americans wonder what the Libyan attack has to do with them, anyway. But
this atrocity affects them more than they realize. Here are FIVE reasons why.1. THE GOVERNMENT’S FAILURE TO PROTECT AMERICANS:
The United States government has a moral obligation to defend Americans against foreign attackers who want to kill, conquer, and subjugate them (including Americans who are abroad). So, the moment the terrorists began the assault on the Benghazi consulate we would expect the “Commander-in-Chief” to be notified, and action to be initiated against the attackers as soon as possible. Yet, we have discovered that Chris Stevens and his team stood completely helpless that hellacious night in Libya.
Knowing Benghazi has become a “hotspot” for terrorists since the “ousting” of Libya’s former dictator, Muammar Gaddafi, we’d think more protection would have been given to our ambassador, anyway. But, it wasn’t. Why not?
In fact, a 16-member SEAL security team was removed from Benghazi one month before the deadly attacks. This was despite the fact that there were 13 attacks in the country since the spring of 2012, including one attack that nearly killed Great Britain’s ambassador. This was also despite the fact that requests were made to enhance security in Benghazi, but were rejected by higher-ranking officials. Watch this video:
Not to mention that, according to Independent UK, “The Obama administration had been given a three-day warning prior to the pre-planned, pre-calculated attack on September 11th.”
The claim came as Libya’s interim President, Mohammed el-Megarif, said his government had information that the attack on the US consulate had been planned by an Islamist group with links to al-Qa’ida and with foreigners taking part. Yet, the administration chose to ignore these warnings. Why?
Being that it was the anniversary of the 9/11 World Trade Center attack, one would think the Libyan consulate would be on “high alert” already. But, not only were requests to enhance security (before the attack) rejected by high- ranking officials, the administration still did nothing to protect the ambassador and his team once the attacks actually began.
A drone was sent within a couple hours of the consulate breach so the White House could see the attack in REAL TIME. For nearly seven hours, the situation room sat and watched our fellow Americans enduring hellacious gunfire. Yet, the White House did absolutely nothing to help them. Why?
Military forces (from other parts of the region) were standing by, ready to come and assist the Libyan consulate, but were not called to help. Why not?
Even worse, we now have discovered that CIA operators were actually denied (also by high-ranking officials) urgent requests for military ‘back-up’ during the attack. Not only that, but CIA operators were also told twice to “stand down” rather than to help the ambassador’s team when they heard the shots coming from the consulate. Why?
Dietrich Bonhoeffer once stated, “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”
So, it’s no wonder Charles Woods wants to know why the White House sat oddly silent as they watched his son (Navy Seal, Tyrone Woods) being murdered in cold blood. (CLICK HERE to read an amazing interview with him on the Blaze network.) Charles Woods also explains that Tyrone always believed in the Navy Seal’s motto, “Never leave a man behind.” That’s why Tyrone ignored orders to “stand down,” and died a hero that fateful night. However, Tyrone and three other Americans were themselves– left behind to die. Sadly, as Charles Woods explains to the Blaze, the only explanation given to him for his son’s death–had to do with a you-tube video completely unrelated to the terrorist attack. This should frighten the daylights out of every American, which brings us to our second point.
2. THE COVER-UP IS EVEN WORSE THAN THE CRIME:
We already know the Obama administration sat oddly quiet on that deadly night. Was this a mistake that the White House now regrets? Perhaps, they knew they should have fortified the consulate with more security before terror even raged that night? Perhaps, they knew they should have done something more to help our fellow Americans while they were under assault for 7 grueling hours? If so, it would have just been better to acknowledge their mistakes so that we could all have some resolve.
However, the administration wouldn’t even acknowledge that it was even a terrorist attack for over two weeks after the attack, even though emails confirm that they knew it was–during the actual assault.
Instead, Team Obama went on their media tour, blaming an unknown you-tube video, which they claimed was so offensive to Muslims that it sparked protests, eventually leading to the deadly Libya attack.
In fact, the White House sent diplomat Susan Rice on the five Sunday shows four days after the attack to explain to the world that the Benghazi attack was NOT an act of terror, but because of the offensive you-tube video.
President Obama also went on talk shows like THE VIEW to explain how the video sparked outrage in the Middle East, which resulted in the Benghazi disaster.
Then, after blaming the you-tube video six different times in his United Nations address (nearly two weeks after the attacks), President Obama told the entire world, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”
Even worse than Obama flogging the filmmaker in front of the entire world, Hilary Clinton actually told Charles Woods, “We are going to put that filmmaker in prison.”
Yep, going to prison for FREE SPEECH—in the United States of America. This should make us all shudder. But, it happened!! It had only been a couple weeks after the White House began blaming the video when the filmmaker was “mysteriously” thrown in jail. The guy apparently does have a shady past, and the arrest was based on another offense he supposedly committed. However, it is blatantly obvious that he had been appointed as the administration’s official scapegoat for Libya.
Who is to say they won’t do that to you or me next time?
So, why did they need a scapegoat in the first place? This brings us to our next point.
3. A FAULTY NARRATIVE IS PLACING OUR LIVES IN DANGER:
At the Democratic National Convention, as well as on the campaign trail, President Obama has boasted about “killing Bin Laden” and how “al-Qa’ida is on the run.” Even at the last presidential debate, he claimed that Americans have been much safer since he’s been in office.
Therefore, the Libya attack blows his fairytale narrative right out of the water. If Americans knew that al-Qa’ida linked groups were involved in the attack, they would know that President Obama’s foreign policy is failing. In fact, his apology and appeasement strategy is actually strengthening dangerous groups like Hamas, the Taliban, Hezbollah, al-Qa’ida, and the Muslim Brotherhood.
As the administration lies to Americans, telling them that they are much safer now (as our enemies are actually emboldening), Americans get a false sense of security. Yet, this is exactly what they are doing them. We know our enemies are strengthening in the Middle East. Yet, Team Obama has created this faulty narrative–because it is more politically advantageous to them.
Reporter Lara Logan has also made a strong case that the White House has been lying and downplaying the real strength of our enemies. She writes: “You’re not listening to what the people who are fighting you are saying about this fight. In your arrogance, you think you write the script. Our enemies are writing the story, and there’s no happy ending for us.”
At least Lara Logan is one reporter willing to tell the truth about the dangerous threats we are facing today. Also, reporters: Bret Baier, Jennifer Griffin, and Catherine Herridge have done an outstanding job of bringing facts to light about Libya. This brings us to our next point.
4. MAINSTREAM MEDIA HAS BECOME A DANGER TO AMERICANS:
Time and time again, we have seen the media come to President Obama’s rescue. Even during the second presidential debate, moderator Candy Crowley was right there to “back-up” the president’s false story that he called the Libya assault a “terrorist attack” in the Rose Garden the day after the attack (although, she had to later admit that her own facts were wrong— after the damage was already done).
It’s no secret the mainstream media has been complicit in covering up the Libya scandal, in order to save President Obama’s arse. Even Democrat Pat Caddell is outraged by the lack of journalistic responsibility, saying, “The mainstream media is a threat to Democracy.”
Pat Cadell is exactly right. In fact, their negligence is downright frightening. The media’s very purpose is to be the watchdog of our Republic. They are to do so by reporting the facts, not their own worldview interpretation of current events. Unfortunately, the mainstream media has become nothing more than a lapdog for this president, leaving out any critical information that may be damaging to him. Meanwhile, they are putting all of our lives in jeopardy by withholding the vital details. This brings us to our last point about Libya.
5. LIBYA IS FAST AND FURIOUS ON STEROIDS:
If the mainstream media actually did its job, more Americans would be better informed about Operation Fast and Furious, and how the Obama administration allowed deadly weapons to get into the hands of dangerous Mexican drug cartels. More Americans would be infuriated by the fact that the Fast and Furious debacle resulted in well over 300 deaths, including the death of U.S. border agent Brian Terry. More Americans would be infuriated with the fact that Fast and Furious was actually the administration’s failed attempt to impede on their Second Amend rights.
So, what does Fast and Furious have to do with Libya? We are now finding out that Libya may actually be Fast and Furious on steroids. Of course, we won’t hear this in the mainstream media. According to a recent Washington Times article written by Frank J. Gaffney Jr., president of the Center for Security:
“It seems President Obama has been engaged in gun-walking on a massive scale. The effect has been to equip America’s enemies to wage jihad not only against regimes it once claimed were our friends, but inevitably against us and our allies as well. That would explain his administration’s desperate and now failing bid to mislead the voters through the serial deflections of Benghazigate.”
This evidence suggests that the Obama administration has not simply been engaging, legitimating, enriching and emboldening Islamists who have taken over or are rising in much of the Middle East. The administration has been arming them, including jihadists like Abdelhakim Belhadj, leader of the al-Qa’ida franchise known as the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group.
The duty of the U.S. President is to protect you and me from our enemies. So, isn’t it a frightening thought that he may actually be arming them instead?
These are FIVE important points to consider as you head to the polls November 6th.
No comments:
Post a Comment