Is Benghazi-Gate Barack Obama’s Watergate?

Is It The Scandal That Can Bring Barack Obama Down?

 By Christopher Carmouche, President, Grasstops USA
Keynote Remarks at the Wed., 2/13/13
Freedom Leadership Conference
Sponsored by GrasstopsUSA (2,037 words)

The Benghazi-Gate obstructions and lies morph with each passing day…

In recent days, yet another excuse is now being shopped to the American people to explain the horrible tragedy, namely that Barack Obama was simply AWOL as the tragedy unfolded.

Admittedly, it’s an excuse that is damaging to Obama, but one that should not be readily accepted, because, in the end, it may be just as much an intentional distraction as was the initial story that the attack was the result of an obscure YouTube video.

We now know, assuming Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s testimony is accurate, that the subject of the attack was discussed during a meeting that had been pre-scheduled at 5 PM that day… about an hour and a half after the attack allegedly started and only a half hour after Panetta claims that he was first briefed on the attack.

We now know, according to Panetta’s testimony, that Obama left the operational details, including knowledge of what resources were available to help the Americans under attack in Benghazi, up to Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

And we now know that when Senator Kelly Ayotte asked whether Obama had called to check on the status of events in Benghazi, Panetta said, “no” and he furthermore said that he did not communicate with anyone – repeat anyone -at the White House on the night of Sept. 11.

Where was Obama?  We know he gave a speech in the Rose Garden the following morning before jetting off to a campaign event in Las Vegas… but what was he doing in the interim?

We were initially told that the battle was sent on streaming video direct to the Situation Room in the White House and according to initial media reports, we were told that within two hours, emails from Benghazi reported that Al Qaeda in Libya was claiming responsibility for the attack.

The timelines released by the CIA, the State Department and the Pentagon tell us that a surveillance drone was dispatched to the scene of the attack at approximately 4 PM (10 PM Benghazi-time) and that the surveillance drone was in position at 11:10 PM, while Obama was meeting with Panetta and General Dempsey.

But then, Hillary Clinton told us during her Congressional testimony: “Congressman [Dana Rohrabacher], there was no monitor, there was no real time. We got the surveillance videos some weeks later… that was the first time we saw any video of the attack.”

Who is lying?  Who is telling the truth?

Are we to believe that a surveillance drone was in place (the Pentagon, the State Department and the CIA say yes) and no one was bothering to watch the feed of the unfolding attack in the Situation Room?

Or did Barack Obama go to the Situation Room, watch the events unfold that took the lives of brave Americans and simply fiddle as Rome (or in this case a consulate in Benghazi) burned?

Perhaps Hillary Clinton, during that same testimony, inadvertently said it best:  “What does it matter…”

But… much like the initial lie that the attack was a spontaneous demonstration in reaction to an obscure YouTube video (that no one had even seen), this latest revelation is probably not one that is keeping Barack Obama awake at night.

In the end, attributing this horrendous event to foreign policy ineptitude and incompetence is – for Obama – preferable to actually having to answer many of the real questions surrounding Benghazi-gate… questions that are not being asked.

Benghazi-gate is not about a bogus YouTube video… or a series of lies…. it’s not even about Obama Regime foreign policy ineptitude.

We are dealing with something potentially much more sinister… something potentially treasonous… something that the Obama Administration seeks to hide from the American people… potentially something that – if known – could even lead to the impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama.

A few days ago, while appearing on CNBC’s Kudlow report, Breitbart Editor-in-chief Joel Pollak says Obama lied about his actions – or rather, lack thereof -during the Benghazi attack.

Specifically, Obama’s previous statements about his level of involvement as the Benghazi attack unfolded were directly contradicted by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s Congressional testimony…

An even a Democratic Strategist Jimmy Williams, who was also a guest on the segment of the show, called Obama’s Benghazi-gate lies a “scandal worthy of impeachment” before going off on a bogus and intellectually weak “Bush-Did-It-Too” tirade.

Now, there simply isn’t time tonight to cover every single nuance of this emerging scandal but we can at least give voice to some of the questions that need to be asked… and need to be answered.

Even the timelines eventually released by the CIA, the Pentagon and the State Department beg more questions than they answer and lead a reasonable person to suspect that a cover-up of the highest magnitude is going on here.

Here are just a few observations:

• According to all three timelines, the attack on the Benghazi consulate started at 3:42 PM (9:42 PM Benghazi time) but back on November 3, 2012, Fox News reported:

“According to the CIA, the first calls for assistance came at 9:40 p.m. local time from a senior State Department official at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, to the CIA annex about a mile away. But according to multiple people on the ground that night, the Blue Mountain Security manager, who was in charge of the local force hired to guard the consulate perimeter, made calls on both two-way radios and cell phones to colleagues in Benghazi warning of problems at least an hour earlier. Those calls allegedly went to local security contractors who say that the CIA annex was also notified much earlier than 9:40 p.m. U.S. military intelligence also told Fox News that armed militia was gathering up to three hours before the attack began.”

Follow-up, of course is difficult because Blue Mountain Security isn’t talking anymore.

•  According to the CIA timeline at 4:04 PM (10:04 PM Benghazi time): “During the previous 24-minute interval, the CIA base chief calls the 17 February Brigade, other militias and the Libyan  intelligence service seeking vehicles with 50-caliber machine guns. Nobody responds.”

Incidentally, the CIA timeline also confirms that Tyrone Woods and others decided at that time that they could wait no longer and proceeded to the consulate to render assistance.  Whether or not orders were given to stand-down, it’s clear, by implication, that Woods and others saw the urgent need to take matters into their own hands.

Incidentally, Breitbart.com makes a very interesting aside in regards to the 17 February Brigade:

“This [the 17 February Brigade] is a Libyan militia led by Fawzi Bukatef, who has known ties to both the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist fighters. From a practical standpoint, this is not only problematic because of Bukatef’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, but also because one of his commanders, Ismail al-Salabi, is an Islamist military leader in his own right.”

• According to the CIA report at 4:40 PM (10:40 PM Benghazi Time), the attack on the consulate was still on-going:

“Members of the CIA team enter the burning inferno of ‘Villa C,’ where Ambassador Christopher Stevens is believed to be hiding. CIA officers try numerous times to reach the ‘safe room,’ but are driven back by the intense smoke and fire. Small-arms fire continues from the Libyan attackers.”

Additionally, the CIA reports states: “at 11:30 [another 50 minutes have passed], the CIA officers depart under fire and reach the annex six minutes later.”

However, just a few days ago, General Dempsey, while appearing on CNN’s “State of the Union” said the reason the Defense Department sent no aid to the Americans under attack by terrorists in Benghazi, was because “the attack did not last seven hours but was really two 20-minute attacks six hours apart.”

Who is correct… the CIA report or General Dempsey?

• During his testimony, Panetta said, in regards to the lack of rapid response:

“This was, pure and simple, a problem of distance and time.”… “There simply was not enough time given the speed of the attacks for armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference … and finally Panetta emphasized – to quote the American Forces Press Service – that “the U.S. military is not a global emergency-response service.”

The Heritage Foundation disputes that contention:

“Fox reports that both American and British sources say that there were other capabilities in the region that were not used: ‘There were not only armed drones that monitor Libyan chemical weapon sites in the area, but also F-18’s, AC-130 aircraft, and even helicopters that could have been dispatched in a timely fashion.'”

• And while we’re discussing the topic of “rapid response,” the CIA report states that at 7:15 PM, [1:15 AM Benghazi time]:

“CIA reinforcements arrive on a 45-minute flight from Tripoli in a hastily chartered plane. … They don’t leave Benghazi airport until 4:30. The delay is caused by negotiations with Libyan authorities over permission to leave the airport, obtaining vehicles and the need to frame a clear mission plan.

Are we expected to believe that Americans are under attack and forces sent to rescue them are negotiating with Libyan authorities to get permission to leave an airport?

• Lastly, when it comes to the timeline, here’s an interesting observation.  According to the CIA report at 11:15 PM [5:15 AM Benghazi time]:

“Glen Doherty, one of the GRS men from Tripoli, goes to the roof and joins Woods in firing positions… The defenders have focused their laser sites earlier on several Libyan attackers, as warnings not to fire.  At 5:26 the attack is over. Woods and Doherty are dead and two others are wounded.”

You’ve gotta be kidding me.  Who sets a laser on attackers and gives away his position to send a message not to fire?

Now, it is not my intention to make a case that the Obama Regime is simply attempting to cover-up incompetent, but rather, to suggest that the attempt to make us believe that they’re covering-up incompetence is, in actuality, part of a much larger cover-up.

In that regard, here are a few more questions, initially posed in an article in “The New American,” that really go to the heart of the matter.

• What was the Obama administration’s full role in helping violent Jihadists, self-styled al Qaeda terrorists, and Western-backed “revolutionaries” take over Libya in the first place?

• Did that half-baked scheme to arm Jihadist leaders, who… had previously fought U.S. troops in Iraq, contribute to the attack, as countless experts and officials have suggested?

• What was actually going on at the compound in Benghazi, which as the ARB report states was never a “consulate” despite establishment media claims?

• Was Ambassador Stevens recruiting and arming Jihadists and terrorists to wage war on the Syrian regime after what Obama called the “success” in Libya, as a growing body of credible evidence suggests?

• Why did the administration claim for so long that the attack was just a “protest” over a YouTube video gone awry, even when it knew definitively that was not the case?

•  Was the lack of security at the compound a political ploy to conceal the extent of the lawlessness and utter chaos left in the wake of Obama’s unconstitutional “regime change” war on Libya, as even members of Congress have alleged?

Is it possible that Benghazi-gate is only a small piece of a much larger criminal enterprise… an attempt to conceal what “The New American” calls; “the Obama administration’s full role in helping violent Jihadists [and] self-styled al Qaeda terrorists?”

Perhaps… such an explanation would explain why help never came… it might explain why it took weeks for our investigators to reach the scene of the attack… it might explain why security was systematically downgraded prior to the attack… it might explain a great many things.

In the end, here’s the question we should be asking: Is the present occupant of the Oval Office actively conspiring with America’s enemies?

We’re only asking the question.  We don’t believe it’s an unreasonable question but it’s up to Congress to get to the bottom of this matter.

But that won’t happen until Congress starts to ask the right questions.

PDF24    Send article as PDF   

We appreciate positive comments and/or robust discussion of issues raised here.