Skip to main content

What Do We Know About Benghazi

I'm sure a lot of my more conservative friends will  take issue with what I'm about to write, but I've always been more interested in truth than in appeasing someone.

I watched portions of the most recent Benghazi hearings. Several news organizations revealed the trail of emails that led to the final talking points released on the Benghazi hearings.  I think we can safely assume at this point, that the President isn't the one who ordered the talking points changed.  Whether or not he knew about it, whether or not he deliberately lied, are questions left for another day.  The orchestration of the lie, however, can be laid directly at the feet of the State Department.  Simply put, emails reveal that the State Dept. had issues with the the talking points, because they feared what Congress may say or do if it became known that we were well aware there was terrorist activity, and it was prevalent, in Benghazi.  One of the emails came right out and said it.  So, for political protection and coverage, whole swaths of the talking points were removed, and the first ambassador's death in 30 years was attributed to a non-existent protest related to an obscure video.  We know this now, along with knowing the repeated requests for additional security were denied.  We also know that the Benghazi Consulate was kept open, because Secretary of State Hillary Clinton felt that it would show goodwill to the Libyans.

The fault for the coverup lies directly at the feet of a State Department, who realized that the ugly truth about terrorism in Libya was about to come to light. It wouldn't do for the narrative of the administration, that Osama bin Laden was dead and Al-Qaeda was on the run, to be blown to bits by an obvious terrorist attack.  Nor would it do for the American Public to realize that the threat from terrorists was well known, and had caused other foreign entities and charitable organizations to pull out and go home.

it appears that Susan Rice was never briefed on the truth, turning her into a scapegoat for a false narrative.  We don't have any idea what the President knew and when he knew it, since he isn't saying, and frankly, it appears he gets his information from the news just like the rest of us.  Possibly, had he decided to preside over the ongoing tragedy in Benghazi on 9/11, instead of going to bed, he might have known more.  He is responsible for shirking his duty in favor of sleep.  He is responsible for not keeping a reign on the people who work for him (see..IRS, DOJ and HHS). But in the end, the responsibility for the outrageous lie told to the American people lies at the feet of the State Department, in a sweeping implementation of CYA.

My question now is...who's getting the axe for it?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Taking Down of a Soundbite.

I saw this cartoon this morning on Facebook, and I thought "wow, what a bunch of fallacies."  This cartoon embodies the majority of Democratic Talking Points since 2008 (with a notable absence of the "War on Women" theme... hmm... wonder why).  The thing with this cartoon is, many of these arguments can't be boiled down into signs.  They aren't bumper sticker slogans.  They are real issues, with much deeper thought processes.  I'm going to take just a few. 1) We want dirtier air and water so CEO's can make more money. This issue has to do with the Environment.  It stems from things like the Kyoto Protocol, and various other internationally pushed treaties to help prevent Global Warming, er um... sorry, Climate Change.  Recently our President made a deal with China, whereby we cut our Greenhouse Gas Emissions, while they commit to maybe, possibly, making changes 20 years down the road.  The problem with all of these solutions is that they cost

When Feelings (and apparently Justices) Don't Need Facts

I have a few questions about the vaccine mandate that no one seems to be able to answer.  The mandate makes little sense to me, because of these questions. If those who want to be vaccinated, are vaccinated, and the vaccines effectively protect against serious illness and death in most cases, then what is the compelling interest in forcing the vaccine on people who don't want it?   We now know (despite previous statements to the contrary) that the COVID-19 vaccine does not prevent a person from catching and spreading the virus.  If you need proof of that, look to major sports in the US.  Despite the vast majority of players being vaccinated, COVID has spread like wildfire through the ranks of the NBA, NFL and NHL.  It got so bad in the NFL that they changed their policies. So, if a vaccinated person can spread and catch the virus, how exactly does the mandate protect anyone?   Does the mandate violate equal protection under the law by requiring vaccine mandates for business with 10

Observations 10-26

I generally stick to writing my own stuff, not posting the writing of other people. My whole point in having a blog is to have my voice heard. Maybe that's a little narcissistic. You will have to decide. I have, however, decided to have a feature in this blog called Observations, where I take something I've read, and share it with you. Then I'll make my own comments. (I can't not comment. It will kill me haha.) So, from this morning's reading: From Mary Mapes's monster Share Post Print October 26, 2008 Posted by Scott at 7:04 AM In 2004 Mary Mapes was the celebrated CBS News producer responsible for stories that had won her the recognition of her peers. In September that year she produced Dan Rather's 60 Minutes II report on President Bush's military service that was exposed as fraudulent the following day. CBS commissioned an internal investigation (the Thornburgh-Boccardi report) demonstrating in detail