Email
Password
Remember meForgot password?
    Log in with Twitter

article imageOp-Ed: What is the latest Benghazi inquiry really all about?

By Michael Terron     May 12, 2014 in Politics
Now that the Republican electoral desperadoes have managed to bring the Benghazi fiasco back to the political front burner, it's time to shed a bright light on some of the not-so-hidden motives behind yet another 'investigation'.
As tragic as the incident was, the crocodile tears of the scandal hunters can't compare to the torrential grief of millions of families who have lost loved ones in the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan. In the former debacle, instigated by the unsubstantiated claim of "weapons of mass destruction", no select committee has been formed to make any of the bi-partisan culprits accountable. Why, for instance, did the Taliban government have to be overthrown by the U.S. military after 9-11, when all of the accused attackers, except one, were Al- quaeda terrorists originating in Saudi Arabia? Furthermore, there is ample evidence to suggest that the attack was an 'inside' job or was 'allowed' to occur as a pretext for invading Iraq.
To quote the infamous Donald Rumsfeld, "we don't know what we don't know". What we do know, so far, is:
A civil war began in Libya around in 2010.
Within months of the start of the conflict the C.I.A established a presence in Libya.
During the war, the U.S. Delta Force was deployed in Libya.
On March 2011, Ambassador Christopher Stevens was named the first liaison to the forces opposing Muammar Qaddafi's.
By the time of the attack on the American diplomatic mission the C.I.A. had dozens of operatives on the ground in Benghazi.
Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri released a video throughout the Middle East on September 10, 2012, to coincide with the anniversary of 9-11, which called for attacks on Americans in Libya in order to avenge the death of Abu Yahya al-Libi in a drone strike in Pakistan on June 2012.
On the evening of September 11, 2012, the American mission in Benghazi was attacked. Subsequently, Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith, the U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer, died.
On September 12, a C.I.A. compound, a mile away from the diplomatic mission, was attacked. Two C.I.A. agents, Tyrone S.Woods and Glen Doherty, died.
The never-ending quest to discredit and possibly impeach the current U.S. president cannot be easily dismissed as one motive for the latest Benghazi inquiry. After the insistent birth certificate requests, efforts to stop and repeal Obamacare, the accusations around the U.S. Justice department's 'fast & furious' operation, and the IRS scandal, only the blind, deaf, dumb and dishonest can deny that Republicans are throwing everything up against the wall, desperately hoping that something, anything, will stick. Meanwhile, more urgent matters, like global climate change, chronic domestic joblessness, an ongoing education crisis, astronomic college debt, immigration, a national heroin epidemic, etc., are not being adequately addressed. Arguably, there's been no mass outcry for another Benghazi probe, except the one the witch hunters and their talk radio mouthpieces are trying to manufacture.
Then, there are the very conspicuous 'elephants' in the conspiratorial backroom. The first one is running amok to regain control of the U.S. Senate. The obvious 'benefit' of this is the opportunity to incapacitate the Obama administration for its final two years and promote the Republican non-agenda. If we thought we witnessed congressional gridlock before, a Republican majority in the Senate, coupled with continuing control of the House - which appears to be a forgone conclusion - could stymie the passage of any new, progressive legislation and possibly threaten many of the old ones. Who knows, the Tea Party gang might muster enough clout to get the G.O.P. to run Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity for president in 2016.
The second elephant in the room is charging to recapture the White House. (Trade one political protection racket for another meaner, more in-compassionate one.)There are humongous hurdles, however, to overcome if this is to happen. One, is the nasty taste still lingering in the mouths of the American electorate from the failed Bush 2 administration. One could say that the Bush legacy was so foul that it greased the skids for Obama's ascendancy. A much bigger hurdle is Hillary Clinton's enduring popularity, reinforced by her ex-president husband's restored popularity. Much to the Republicans dismay, Bill has totally rebounded from his various scandals, including the one that almost kicked him out of office. His stirring, "explainer-in-chief" speech at the 2012 Democratic convention not only upstaged the presidential nominee, it sealed his victory. No matter what one thinks of them, the Clintons remain a formidable (dynamic?) duo in U.S. politics, with a slew of I.O.U.s to cash in.
Also, there are many people who, rightly or wrongly, feel that Hillary was 'cheated' in the 2008 election. A little known, African American ex-community activist, one-term Senator, comes out of nowhere & snatches victory out of the jaws of her 'promised' victory! Others feel that, because of her age, this is ol' girl's last shot to be the first female president. There seems to be no male, alive today, the Republicans could nominate that she couldn't beat, hands down. Even if they pulled Sarah Palin out of her snow-cave, with a makeover and claimed that, since her rather embarrasing performance in 2008, she has now become an expert in geopolitics, she's still no match for a seasoned, legally trained, better-connected and richer candidate like Hillary. They could, perhaps, resurrect their 'ace-in-the-hole' dead icon, Ronald Reagan, declare "mo(u)rning in America," continue to regurgitate the ridiculous myths about his presidency, - and still lose. It's a no-win situation, unless, the ghosts of Benghazi loom large enough to make Hillary decide that the pursuit of the most powerful political office in the world is not worth the damage it could do to her reputation; which is, at the very least, what the "vast right-wing' conspirators hope that she does.
Whether or not the Republicans recapture the Senate, the Clinton dynasty grows, baby brother, Jeb, extends the Bush dynasty or the 'undercover' Republicans, a.k.a. Libertarians emerge victorious, there is definitely a more important issue here: who will put an end to our government's imperialist policies? If the latest bunch of Benghazi investigators want to do a real service for American citizens and taxpayers (and the world) they could find out why we had to intervene in the Libyan civil war in the first place. Political pundit, George Will - no dove or liberal - and a host of others, were honest enough to call the intervention "criminal".
Other pertinent questions for the select committee are: Since Qaddafi, like Saddam Hussein, had previously been 'contained' by American military power, why were we so quick to overthrow him? Were we aware of the forces who would succeed him? Did we care? Is it true that, once it was clear that he could not hold on to power, Qaddafi offered to 'voluntarily' step down, without further resistance and go into asylum in another country? If so, why was it necessary to kill him or 'allow' him to be killed? Finally, what was the true nature of the C.I.A.'s involvement in Libya? . . . Inquiring minds need to know.
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, Libya, Gaddafi
More news from
Latest News
Top News