Benghazigate

Frank Gaffney in a recent column in Townhall explains the dynamics and logistics of the media-complicit cover-up now known as "Benghazigate":

"The evidence suggests that the Obama administration has not simply been engaging, legitimating, enriching and emboldening Islamists who have now taken over or are ascendant in much of the Middle East. Starting in March 2011, when American diplomat Christopher Stevens was designated the liaison to the "opposition" in Libya, the Obama administration has been arming them, including jihadists like Abdelhakim Belhadj, the leader of the al Qaeda franchise known as the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group."

 

"Once Qaddafi was overthrown, Chris Stevens was appointed as the ambassador to the new Libya run by Belhadj and his friends.... It now appears that Amb. Stevens was there [Benghazi] - on a particularly risky day.... for another priority mission: sending arms recovered from the former regime's stocks to the "opposition" in Syria.... known to include al Qaeda and other shariah-supremacist groups...."

Obama literally raced to the cameras to take credit for killing al-Qaeda notable Osama bin Laden just hours after his body bobbed beneath the wake of the USS Carl Vinson. On a sequent campaign event, he reminded his admirers: "I promised to go after al Qaeda and bin Laden, and we did it," and during the final presidential debate he took credit for having "decimated" "Al Qaeda's core leadership."

 

Yet, evidence now suggests that the administration was concurrently coordinating a covert "fast and furious" "gun-running" operation aiding the very terrorist organization it claimed to have decimated by killing Osama bin Laden.

 

 

Aaron Klein (WND senior staff reporter and Jerusalem bureau chief) recently chided America's journalistically challenged media regarding their persistent reference to U.S. "consulate" in Benghazi. He also notes that U.S. officials not only failed to correct the misconception, but subtly subordinated it. Klein further reminds us that the State Department website lists no consulate in Benghazi:

The U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, actually served as a meeting place to coordinate aid for the rebel-led insurgencies in the Middle East, according to Middle Eastern security officials. Among the tasks performed inside the building was collaborating with Arab countries on the recruitment of fighters – including jihadists – to target Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.

The distinction may help explain why there was no major public security presence at what has been described as a “consulate.” Such a presence would draw attention to the shabby, nondescript building that was allegedly used for such sensitive purposes.

Since the mission was attacked last month, countless news media reports around the world have referred to the obscure post as a U.S. consulate. That theme continues to permeate the media, with articles daily referencing a “consulate” in Benghazi.

U.S. officials have been more careful in their rhetoric while not contradicting the media narrative that a consulate was attacked.

In his remarks on the attack, President Obama has referred to the Benghazi post as a “U.S. mission.” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has similarly called the post a “mission."

 

 

 

Robert Spencer in a column in PJ Media explains in part the White House and State Department failure to acknowledged what was really happening that night in Benghazi i.e., four years of Islam-sensitive foreign policy and the lifeless sodomized body of Chris Stevens:

The Obama administration is approaching full meltdown over the steady stream of revelations concerning its inaction and lies over the massacre of Ambassador Chris Stevens and other U.S. personnel in Libya....

Speaking about the Libyan revolution in March 2011, Obama warmly praised the dawning in Libya of “the rights of peaceful assembly, free speech, and the ability of the Libyan people to determine their own destiny.” After providing military aid to the anti-Gaddafi rebels despite evidence of their al-Qaeda links, the administration–whether the call really came from the White House or the State Department or both–had every reason to ignore the request from Benghazi for more security, and to pretend that the whole thing was just a spontaneous uprising over a video, not the carefully planned September 11 jihad attack that it proved to be.

To have acknowledged what was really happening would have been to admit that the Allahu-akbaring mob besieging the Benghazi consulate was nothing remotely close to a responsible citizenry enjoying their rights of peaceful assembly, free speech, and self-determination. It would have been to admit that the jihad against the United States would not be turned away from its goal by hearts-and-minds gestures, even if those gestures included the removal of a brutal dictator. The people of Benghazi were no more inclined to welcome the Americans as liberators–and Ambassador Stevens had attempted to play exactly that role, sneaking into Libya during the most difficult days of the uprising and doing everything he could to aid the rebels–than were the people of Iraq when Saddam Hussein was toppled....