The terrorist strike claiming the lives of four American diplomats at the mission in Benghazi, Libya has become more than a tragedy; it has become a window into the Obama administration’s misjudgment and questionable dealings in the volatile Middle East. Each new day brings more shocking revelations about the September 11th anniversary attacks; and the brewing Benghazigate scandal may have hit a watershed moment.
Several mainstream media sources, including Reuters, CBS, and Fox News, have revealed that emails indicate the Obama administration was informed of terrorist-claims of the Benghazi mission murders two hours after their occurrence. As mentioned previously, three intelligence sources reported the terrorist attack to the Obama administration within 24 hours.
Specifically, credit for the heinous act was claimed by the State Department-designated terrorist group Ansar al-Sharia. The organization is comprised in part of the disbanded Martyrs of the Feb. 17th Revolution Brigade; thereby connecting it to both the Muslim Brotherhood and to al Qaeda.
In Egypt, the Cairo protest was announced as early as August 30th by the terrorist group Gama’a al Islamiyah. Oddly, the administration granted a visa to and met with a member of Gama’a al Islamiyah, Hani Nour Eldin, which prompted a June 24th letter from Rep. Peter King of the House Committee on Homeland Security.
The Obama administration insisted repeatedly that a poorly made YouTube video widely known as “Innocence of Muslims” was responsible for the conflagrations on the September 11th anniversary. However, considering the timing; the symbolism of the targets; participation in and propagandizing of the event by multiple terrorist groups (including al Qaeda); the terrorist group demands issued to release the Blind Sheikh Omar abdel-Rahman; the geographical breadth and coordinated sequenced manner, which is an al Qaeda calling card; all of these factors suggest that the video was simply a smokescreen under which to assault the U.S. diplomats.
That the Obama administration would repeat and thereby spread this obvious “disinformation” that a video caused the protests, and by insinuation, the attacks, is a grave cause for concern. President Obama has been yet to definitively label the assault on the Benghazi mission a terrorist attack (although public perception may be that he did at the second presidential debate), just as the president refused to label the Fort Hood massacre a terrorist attack, instead officially calling it “workplace violence.”
Further politically radioactive information has come out buttressing speculation that the reason for the Obama administration’s contradictory claims about what happened at Benghazi is related to possible arms trafficking of “MANPADS” (man-portable air defense systems) through Turkey to the Free Syrian Army, as well as to other potential al-Qaeda penetrated groups.
A recent analysis by former CIA analyst Clare Lopez posed that the Obama administration cover-up may be part of a Libyan weapon buyback following the NATO deposition of Colonel Moammar Qaddafi. A New York Times article describes the Libyan city and the security context:
Benghazi, awash in guns, has recently witnessed a string of assassinations as well as attacks on international missions, including a bomb said to be planted by another Islamist group that exploded near the United States mission there as recently as June. But a Libyan politician who had breakfast with Mr. Stevens at the mission the morning before he was killed described security, mainly four video cameras and as few as four Libyan guards, as sorely inadequate for an American ambassador in such a tumultuous environment.
Corroborating sources with the New York Times article show that the mission was maintaining “low-profile” security, despite the known threats. But an ABC News piece repeated a State Department claim that the attack on the Benghazi mission was “unprecedented”; meanwhile revealing that there were video camera feeds of the attack. It might be wise for the Obama administration to show some of its vaunted transparency and publicly release evidence that is not adverse to national security interests of what happened at Benghazi. (Continued on Next Page)1 2