Email
Password
Remember meForgot password?
    Log in with Twitter

article imageOp-Ed: Benghazi-Gate

By Burton Wiborg     Nov 17, 2012 in Politics
Washington - As developments unfold, the real story behind the attacks in Benghazi are starting to reveal new motives as to why security was denied.
Ex Cia Director David Petraeus testified yesterday in Washington D.C. about his assessment of the attack in Benghazi, Libya that took place on September 11, 2012. In his testimony, he stated he referenced Al Qaeda's involvement with the attack on the U.S. Consulate, which left four Americans dead.
Petraeus' memo was sent to top officials including the State Department, the Justice Department, the National Security Council, and the White House. By the time details of the attack reached media outlets, all mention of the terrorist organization had been redacted.
At the request of the White House, U.N Ambassador to the U.S. Susan Rice appeared on five Sunday shows reporting a different scenario. Despite reports from top Libyan officials and that from the CIA, she was adamant the attack was spontaneous and not premeditated with no mention of the word terrorism or terrorist.
As more details come to light, sources say top officials including Obama watched the attack take place in real time from the Situation Room in the White House via two unmanned drones which were dispatched to Benghazi after the attack began.
This is all in contradiction to the Obama Administration's claim that the attack was a demonstration gone out of control due to a you tube video. For nearly two weeks, the White House stuck to this claim.
Also in question is the fact that multiple security requests made by the consulate due to deteriorating safety concerns were denied or ignored by State Department officials.
The State Department also instituted a policy to put Libya into a normalized country status as directed by the Obama Administration. This policy is the sole reason why security requests were denied altogether.
Now with all the pieces of the puzzle coming together, it looks as if Obama's foreign policy achievement he claimed the last two years has been nothing but a painted picture by design. With evidence mounting, it looks as if a false scenario was being created by this normalization policy, and for obvious reason. Let's look at the facts.
In the months leading up to the attack, safety for American officials in Benghazi became a bigger issue, yet security was not only denied but minimized due to normalization policy.
Nearly two weeks after the attack, the White House denied the attack was related to terrorist when in fact top officials including Obama watched it unfold in real time via drones.
CIA Director Petraeus testified his assessment revealed terrorist were behind the attack yet his talking points were reworded to exclude any mention of terrorist.
With these accounts of events taking place, how does one not wonder a cover-up is obvious? Did the presidential campaign have influence on the decisions made in the months leading up to the attacks?
With all the evidence pointing in that direction, I'd say Benghazi-Gate.
This opinion article was written by an independent writer. The opinions and views expressed herein are those of the author and are not necessarily intended to reflect those of DigitalJournal.com
More about Benghazi attack, Obama administration, Investigation
 
Latest News
Top News