Murder, lies and videotape
Flashing red lies of Benghazi
Comments | Print friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
Late on Sunday, December 30, 2012, under the cover of the holiday weekend, the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs quietly released their investigative report of the attack in Benghazi that killed four Americans. The 29-page investigative report titled Flashing Red, additional to the State Department’s own Accountability Review Board’s (ARB) report, was released by Committee Chairman Joseph Lieberman and Ranking Committee member Susan Collins.
The report contains ten “findings,” eleven “recommendations,” 117 heavily redacted footnotes and even a prominent mention of the dialogue between Barack Hussein Obama and Joy Behar of The View. The conclusion reached by this report is a mere six sentences long, ultimately determining that the Benghazi deaths are “a tragic reminder that the fight our country is engaged in with Islamist extremists and terrorists is not over,” and that the U.S. government failed to protect its public servants in Benghazi.
As fully expected, the majority of the findings and subsequent recommendations in this report directly relate to security of the physical assets and personnel in Libya. These are deliberate deflections to divert attention away from certain key elements, including but not limited to identifying those who were behind the attacks and their motive. The most critical aspect of this investigation that would provide the context necessary to understand what took place in Benghazi on September 11, 2102, was missing from this report: the reasons that Obama and certain members of his administration deliberately withheld and even purposely misrepresented the facts to the families of the slain victims and the American people collectively.
Contradictions and lies
Most Americans will recall that Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Susan Rice, Jay Carney and others under the direct control of the Chief Executive immediately identified a little-known video as the motive for the attack in Benghazi, and the existence of a crowd of protestors motivated by anti-American sentiment gathered outside of the “embassy” or “consulate” in Benghazi due to this video. This is one of the most critically important aspects to the official version of events in Benghazi as well as the events that followed at the highest levels of our government.
The video is the metaphorical “smoking gun” in the intentional cover-up implemented at the highest levels of our government. Its importance is comparable to the Nixon tapes of the Watergate era, or the infamous blue dress in the Clinton scandal. Despite its importance as the cornerstone of an immense cover-up not seen since the Watergate era, this report not only downplays its significance, but allows obvious factual contradictions to exist unimpeded. It is unconscionable that any investigative inquiry with a genuine intent on uncovering the truth in the murders of four Americans would avoid pursuing this issue as exhibited in this report.
The video was referenced four times within this report, with the most important reference appearing on page four as follows (Washington timeline of 9/11):
“From 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. EST, Secretary Panetta met with senior DOD officials to discuss the Benghazi attack and other violence in the region in reaction to the anti-Muslim video.”
Having the benefit of retrospect alone, it is unthinkable that this report fails to question the truthfulness of this assertion which we now know cannot be true. The veracity of this claim becomes even more absurd when it’s now known with absolute certainty that the Benghazi compound was¬† not an embassy, consulate, or even an overtly obvious diplomatic mission. The facts now prove that this compound was operating “under the radar” for non-diplomatic purposes, a fact that was well known to Panetta, Clinton and others.
Accordingly, there could not have been a protest of any kind at this location. By deliberately and incorrectly calling the Benghazi compound an embassy (initially) and later a consulate, the deception was further advanced to allow for the possibility of a protest. This is not an act of omission by elected and appointed officials, but one of commission. Yet the investigative report fails to address this deception for what it is by outright dismissing this deliberate lie with the concession that the attacks in Benghazi were, in fact, terrorist attacks.
This absolute deceptions relative to the video, the alleged protest in Benghazi, and the ultimate murders of four Americans were dismissed on page 23 of this report by the following statement:
“In short, regardless of questions about whether there had been a demonstration or protest outside the Temporary Mission Facility in advance of the attack, the extent to which the attacks were preplanned, or the role of an anti-Islamic video which had sparked protests at the U.S. embassy in Cairo and elsewhere earlier on September 11th, there was never any doubt among key officials, including officials in the IC and the Department of State, that the attack in Benghazi was an act of terrorism.”
In one single run-on sentence, the report of investigation blatantly dismisses the deception of the Obama administration relative to the video and nature of the compound by merely admitting that the event in Benghazi was indeed a terrorist attack. The report further gives passes to Obama, Clinton and Rice as they knowingly misled the American people in multiple venues, from Sunday morning panel shows to daytime shows such as The View and late night talk shows such as The Late Show with David Letterman. It would appear that the choice of venues is indicative of the utter contempt shown for the victims, their families and every thinking American.
Murder, lies and videotape
It is often said that it is not always the crime, but the cover-up that creates the most serious problems to those involved in criminal activity. So too will it be with Benghazi. The evidence of a massive cover-up exists within reach, waiting for the spotlight of truth to bring it into focus. The video that was identified as being the spark that ignited the protests and ultimately, the attack that resulted in the murder of four Americans plays an important and very telling role, but not in the manner believed by many Americans.
The video holds certain clues in the activities of this administration, as do those associated with it. Based on my own extensive research, investigation and inquiries, it is my professional belief and opinion that it contains the “fingerprints” of certain key individuals acting within and on behalf of this administration, including, perhaps, one who is presently being considered to head a large government agency.
Additionally, it appears that the video can be traced back to individuals and groups who were involved in a case of political intrigue in 2008. A case that when viewed in a certain manner, when focused in a certain way, might also involve the unsolved murder of a young man who was caught in a situation way over his head. Having no choice but to turn government informant, he never got the chance to testify on record, as he was found with a bullet to his head.
As we have seen with such cover-ups as Watergate and the Clinton sex scandal, it is the hubris of those involved in the cover-up that leads to their downfall. However, no one was murdered in either of those two scandals, and the motives of both did not involve taking a country to the brink of a world war.
The truth behind Benghazi, however, is the key to it all.