Subscribe to Canada Free Press for FREE

•How did ambassador Stevens die?
• Who murdered him?
• What was the motive?

Dude, That Was Five Years Ago: Back to Benghazi


By --September 22, 2017

Comments | Print Friendly-- Fewer Ads | Subscribe | Email Us

How many remember that interview with Bret Baier when Tommy Vietor, former White House Security Council spokesperson, said when speaking about the Incident at Benghazi, “Dude…this was two years ago?”

Later, the Hill, in an attempt to dismiss the audacity of Veitor’s remark, wrote, “He later said his comment was not intended to be dismissive of the attacks in Benghazi, where four Americans—including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens—lost their lives.”

It’s now 2017, and dude, most of the US Congress has been dismissive of the loss of life at Benghazi.

The problem with the Congressional investigations into the Incident at Benghazi is that they keep going around in circles. There have been multiple Congressional investigations into the Incident at Benghazi, yet we do not know the answers to three fundamental questions any police detective would ask about a murder.

It’s the same problem with many editors. They are reluctant to run stories about what happened at Benghazi because there is nothing new to add. But there is nothing new to add because reporters do not want to answer the old questions that should have been asked from the beginning about any murder. How did the victim die? Who killed him? What was the motive?

Can anyone who reads Canada Free Press, American Thinker or the New York Times go to their member of Congress and get straight answers to any of these questions?

Dude, that was five years ago!

Treat terrorism as a crime

“Handling terrorism suspects in the criminal justice system is standard legal procedure; there is nothing radical or extraordinary about it,” writes Anthony D. Romero.

If the above argument is what members of Congress believe, then why don’t they do what they believe: Treat the Incident at Benghazi as a crime and begin answering the three fundamental questions asked in any criminal investigation?

When journalists keep repeating that the Incident at Benghazi happened because the Republican Congress did not budget enough money for embassy security, they are displaying their ignorance.

Dr. Anne Stevens (sister of ambassador Chris Stevens) said in an interview that the Benghazi mission was understaffed, “I do not blame Hillary Clinton or Leon Panetta…their staffs were doing their best to provide what they could with the resources they had. The Benghazi Mission was understaffed. We know that now.”

In fact, the US station at Benghazi was well staffed and protected. It was more like a fort than a CIA annex. “Sources told CNN that 35 Americans were in Benghazi that night—21 of whom were working out of the annex—and that several were wounded, some seriously.”

Beyond that, why would any sister whose brother was murdered not want to know how her brother died, who killed him, and what was the motive? And why is there is no mention by her of the lie that an anti-Muslim video was the motive for the attack at Benghazi?

We now know that plans for the attack at Benghazi had nothing to do with a provocative YouTube video by an obscure filmmaker, which the administration repeatedly blamed for the attacks.

“(Kris Paronto) The 45-year-old Nebraskan said he wants to break out of “just being the ‘13 Hours’ guy.’ But he still stews about what he considers the lies of Benghazi, such as the White House spin that the attack resulted from a spontaneous demonstration, when no such event occurred.”

Yet, in all of this, there is still no mention of making public the autopsy report on Stevens so that we may know the answer to the first question in a murder investigation:  How did the victim die?

 

Continued below...

Hillary Clinton and terrorist groups

Most often, the Congressional investigations about Benghazi centered on Hillary Clinton, not on the criminal acts that happened at Benghazi. Why is that? Could it be that Congressional investigators have gone out of their way to hide the truth about what happened at Benghazi?

Hillary Clinton stood with her hand over her heart when Stevens’ gray coffin came off an air force plane. With latch and handle, the government supplied coffin looked like an oversized piece of rolling luggage. “Clinton said their deaths are ‘not easy.’ But she added, ‘We must be clear-eyed even in our grief.’”

We now know that men from Egypt participated in the Benghazi attack. Aaron Klein writes, “A Senate investigation for the first time confirmed an Egyptian organization participated in the deadly attack on the U.S. special mission and nearby CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya.”

“The 88-page Senate report states ‘individuals affiliated with terrorist groups, including ... the Mohammad Jamal Network, participated in the September 11, 2012, attacks.’”

Beyond that, Klein adds, “The Muslim Brotherhood connection may serve as further evidence of an Egyptian role in the Benghazi attack.” This admission adds weight to the growing suspicion that a kidnapping plot against ambassador Stevens was planned.


Even with this growing suspicion, we seldom hear from the FBI the names of any criminal suspects that are under investigation for the murders at Benghazi. So far, no one has been apprehended and put on trail for Stevens’ murder.

The second question in a murder investigation remains unanswered. Who killed ambassador Stevens? Why hasn’t the murderer or murderers been brought to the US to stand trial?

 


The Libyan disaster

In my article, “Three Questions for the Select Committee to Answer,” I tried to answer the three fundamental questions about the murders at Benghazi and to offer a theory of the crime at Benghazi, a theory that explains most of the facts, especially a motive and the now evident stand down order.

Ambassador Chris Stevens, who died at Benghazi, seemed to have embraced wholeheartedly the failed Clinton policies. It is likely he was an ambitious, true believer.

Yet, given the 2016 slaughter of gays in an Orlando nightclub, we have to wonder what Stevens was thinking when he went to Benghazi in the first place? He must have known that gay men are not liked by many Muslims.

Ambassador Stevens was Clinton’s friend and translator. Nevertheless, she seems to misrepresent his death and service. Was Stevens led astray by his trust in Mrs. Clinton and the illusions of her policies and the so-called Arab Spring?

We must recognize that not only Mrs. Clinton’s “bad judgment and failed policy” created havoc in Libya but also may have cost Ambassador Steven his life. Failed policies sometimes are covered up by betrayal.

Writing for The National Interest, Charles R. Kubic, echoing Hillary Clinton’s infamous, “What difference does it make,” claims that, Secretary Clinton’s war in Libya actually did make a difference.

“It led to a very real and very tragic humanitarian disaster. Her bad judgment and failed policy resulted in the arming of terrorists, months of war…the murder of the American ambassador and the deaths of three other brave Americans, continued civil war and the collapse of the Libyan economy, and a failed nation-state contributing to a tragic European migrant crisis…the Libyan disaster tops Secretary Clinton’s legacy of failure.”

As far back as 2015, “Judicial Watch has obtained previously classified documents from the US Department of Defense and the Department of State revealing that DOD almost immediately reported that the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was planned and carried out by al-Qaida and Muslim Brotherhood-linked terrorists.”

 

Continued below...

Now, in 2017, we find out that Judicial Watch today released 54 pages of new State Department documents, including a transcript of a September 12, 2012, telephone conference call with congressional staffers in which then-Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy admitted that the deadly terrorist assault on the Benghazi Consulate was not “under cover of protest,” but was, in fact, “a direct breaching attack.”

Beyond that, when asked why no Americans troops were inserted, Kennedy responded that, “the entire thing lasted approximately 4.5 hours. No US forces within time to get there.” 

This statement by Kennedy is not credible. Troops were available and could have arrived in time to provide support during the second attack on the CIA annex, which according to Kennedy, was assaulted by 100 attackers.

If we know this, then why don’t we know their motive for the attack? Could the failed policies of Clinton be connected to a motive for Stevens death?

Dude, we need better answers to the questions about what happened at Benghazi on September 11th, 2012, answers that do not keep going around in circles.

Instead of playing Ring around the Rosy, members of Congress ought to get in a straight line and answer directly three old questions about the Incident at Benghazi, questions any police detective would have answered years ago if he were investigating a crime.

How did ambassador Stevens die?

Who murdered him?

What was the motive?



Robert Klein Engler -- Bio and Archives | Comments

Robert Klein Engler lives in Des Plaines, Illinois and sometimes New Orleans. Robert’s books are to be found at amazon.com and Lulu.com. His long poem, The Accomplishment of Metaphor and the Necessity of Suffering, set partially in New Orleans, is published by Headwaters Press, Medusa, New York, 2004.

Commenting Policy

Please adhere to our commenting policy to avoid being banned. As a privately owned website, we reserve the right to remove any comment and ban any user at any time.

Comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal or abusive attacks on other users may be removed and result in a ban.
-- Follow these instructions on registering: