Wednesday, October 31, 2012

How does all this make sense?

The fact that Ambassador Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, and the President in his address to the UN, all attributed the cause of the Benghazi attack to a demonstration provoked by a video trailer, indicated a cover up to hide an attack by terrorists.
The “common” explanation for the Benghazi cover-up is that the President did not want the people to perceive that Al Quaeda was not “on the run” as he asserted, but is in fact getting stronger.
However, this explanation does not fully answer the White House behaviour:
- Not leaving Benghazi, when all other foreign diplomats did; why not to avoid the problem?
- Refusing to add or even maintaining security in Benghazi. It has been testified that it was not a question of funds, then why?
- Telling the marines in the Annex to “stand down” once the attack had started; why?
- Sending a second unarmed drone from Sicily to record the attack, but refusing to send help from the same military base to save lives; why?
- The President now saying that he immediately ordered the military to do everything possible, but the military saying that they decided not to intervene; what???

Why would the White House risk being caught in a series of lies growing by the day?
What was (or is) so important to justify that risk?
Why would the CIA, the Secretary of State, the Ambassador to the UN and the Military go along with the daily changes of the White House narrative, however contradictory?
How could the White House possibly think that the truth, known to hundreds of people on the very day of the attack, will not come out?
In fact, when the President lied to the UN, most people already knew that the attack was perpetrated by terrorists. How can the President’s behavior make sense?

Possible explanation #1: The White House felt they were safe in Benghazi because they were “talking” to Muslim extremists (one of them possibly released from Guantanamo) and indeed running guns to them, possibly intended to be used against the Syrian regime.  The knowledge of such covert operation may cause a Syrian or even Iranian reaction.

Possible explanation #2: The White House wanted ambassador Stevens to be “eliminated”, because they had gone too far in providing help to rebels (through Stevens), and the Administration could not afford being caught in helping another set of rebels, a tactic that was demonstrated ruinous in Egypt.

Possible backup to explanation #2: The White House might have thought that, in case Stevens survived and was abducted, they would look good in “freeing the hostage” through negotiation, before the election.

Possible explanation #3: We are lead by a bunch of incompetents.

Final question: What happened to investigative journalism?

The President should be required to answer what he knew and when he knew it in front of a Congressional commission.

If an overriding matter of national security is (or was) in question, the White House could have maintained silence. Lying is NEVER justified.

In any case, this cover-up is more shameful than the Watergate scandal, the perjury of Clinton, and even the disastrous Fast and Furious gun-running operation under Attorney General Eric Holder.

No comments: