The CIA has released a timeline of events in the Benghazi attack, and while it is informative, their timeline doesn’t really answer any of the important questions surrounding what happened leading to the death of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans.
And while The Washington Post’s David Ignatius alleges that the timeline shows no evidence of a conspiracy, the timeline leaves out several crucial details. It says nothing about the multiple requests for security that were denied in the days & weeks prior to the attack. It says nothing about the military forces that were reportedly told to “stand down,” even though the CIA and Libyan forces were outnumbered and needed military assistance. It says nothing about what was going on behind the scenes in Washington D.C., where they knew the attack was going on, but left it up to the forces on the ground, rather than sending in air support or other resources that could have made the difference between life and death for our people.
And there are more troubling reports coming out of Benghazi. Apparently, one of the local Libyan police that was part of the force tasked with security for the consulate was seen taking pictures of the interior of the compound on the morning of September 11. It doesn’t take much of a logical leap to conclude that he was probably colluding with the terrorists, gathering intelligence for the upcoming attack…and The Daily Beast is reporting that the State Department never even requested military assistance during the attack. When you consider that the forces on the ground were outnumbered and outgunned, and local security forces were less than trustworthy, given the day’s earlier events, that goes far beyond incompetence.
The timeline even gets a little political, explicitly pointing out that President Obama used the word “terror” in his Rose Garden speech on September 12, and covering Mitt Romney’s comments from the same day. In fact, much of the timeline’s coverage of events following the attack center on who said what, paying specific attention to when and where President Obama used the word “terror.”
But I think it’s important to face the facts: whether the president said “terror” or not, he and his administration were still blaming the Benghazi attack on the YouTube video for weeks following the attack…and at this point, we don’t even know for sure that the 9/11/12 protests in Cairo and other parts of the Middle East were about the video, either – the terrorists were protesting on 9/11, shouting “Obama, we are Osama.” The protest could very well have been triggered by the killing of Osama bin Laden, and President Obama’s constant spiking the ball on Osama’s death, and that seems a much more plausible explanation than that a video that had been sitting on YouTube unnoticed for months and months suddenly triggered a massive protest movement across the Middle East and Southeast Asia.
And the incompetence doesn’t stop there. It didn’t take long after the attack for the general public to find out that many sensitive documents were stolen from the consulate during and after the attack – we don’t even know all of the sensitive information that may have been taken that day…and apparently, there are still sensitive documents there, even after God-knows-who has had access to the site.
The entire incident in Benghazi has been the perfect storm of incompetence, secrecy, and scandal. It represents a massive failure by the Obama administration, yet thus far no one has been fired in the aftermath. It is blindingly obvious that President Obama wants nothing more than to let the “investigation” drag on, month after month, until by the time the results finally come out, America doesn’t care any more.
That is how cover-ups work, after all.