by: the Common Constitutionalist
Liberals are asking us not to care so much about Benghazi. I’ve read many articles over the last many months telling us that the attack was nothing new and asking what difference does it make now.
One such posting was by Ben Cesca of the Daily Banter.
In it he writes of the “republican persecution” that, “Fox News is predictably helming the biggest raft of hooey on the situation — turning its attention to Hillary Clinton in an abundantly obvious early move to stymie her presidential run before it even begins.”
Yes, the dreaded Fox News; favorite target of the left.
He Continued: “The Benghazi attacks (the consulate and the CIA compound) are absolutely not unprecedented even though they’re being treated that way by Republicans who are deliberately ignoring anything that happened prior to Inauguration Day, January 20, 2009.”
He then goes on to list 13 separate Embassy and consulate attacks during the Bush years.
To be sure, all those attacks were terrible, perpetrated by heinous radical Islamists. No one is denying that. After all, we were/are at war with radical Islamists, and they have no code of war and no conscience or remorse for killing innocents.
But Mr. Cesca, I’m here to tell you that you and all the other Obama apologists are dead wrong. Cover up aside, the Benghazi attack was indeed unprecedented.
But in order to get the truth, one must leave the U.S. and look for it in the foreign press.
There you would have found this from the UK Daily Mail posted on April 22nd and updated on April 28th – just a week ago.
“The Citizens Commission on Benghazi, a self-selected group of former top military officers, CIA insiders and think-tankers, declared Tuesday in Washington that a seven-month review of the deadly 2012 terrorist attack has determined that it could have been prevented – if the U.S. hadn’t been helping to arm al-Qaeda militias throughout Libya a year earlier. ‘The United States switched sides in the war on terror with what we did in Libya, knowingly facilitating the provision of weapons to known al-Qaeda militias and figures,’ Clare Lopez, a member of the commission and a former CIA officer, told MailOnline.”
She blamed the Obama administration for tacitly approving the diversion of half of a $1 billion Qatari arms shipment to al-Qaeda-linked militants.
Where have we heard that before? Oh that’s right – others and I posted articles about the attack, highlighting the movement of weapons to terrorists. Mine was up on October 26, 2012 entitled “Benghazi…The Cover Up”
Mailonline continues: “The intelligence community was part of that [the weapons diversion], the Department of State was part of that, and certainly that means that the top leadership of the United States, our national security leadership, and potentially Congress – if they were briefed on this – also knew about this.”
“Some look at it as treasonous moves,’ said Wayne Simmons, a former CIA officer who participated in the commission’s research. ‘And our men and women had to follow what many purport as, qualify as treasonous moves.”
Now how could anyone look at arming our enemies as treasonous? That’s just hyperbole. Right!!
“Gaddafi wasn’t a good guy, but he was being marginalized,” Retired Rear Admiral Chuck Kubic recalled. “Gaddafi actually offered to abdicate shortly after the beginning of a 2011 rebellion. But the U.S. ignored his calls for a truce, ultimately backing the horse that would later help kill a U.S. ambassador.”
That “horse” being al-Qaeda. It would be like FDR authorizing a weapons transfer to the Japanese. It should be absolutely unthinkable – but evidently not for this administration.
So when a lefty buffoon like Bob Beckel says, “Let me finish by saying with what I think Hillary Clinton says — we know Islamic radicals killed these people, what difference does it make anymore?”
“Because they covered it up, Bob,” Eric Bolling shot back.
“So what?!” Beckel screamed. “Every administration covers things up.”
Nothing like this Bob…nothing at all like this!