Get PJ Media on your Apple

Rubin Reports

As Benghazi Scandal Builds, Libya Falls Apart

May 13th, 2013 - 12:27 pm

A forgotten element in the Benghazi scandal: if Obama had said it was a terrorist attack back in September of 2012, he would have had to do something about it.

Now — not just on that one day of September 11, 2012 but for seven months thereafter (!) — the U.S. government has done zero about the murder of four American officials.

Consider the Benghazi scandal from the standpoint of Benghazi — where the militia that murdered the Americans is one of the most powerful forces in the city — and Libya itself. Suppose that from the beginning on September 11, 2012, the U.S. government announced that the U.S. facility was under attack by a militia group linked to al-Qaeda: it would have had to explain why it had hired members of that militia group to guard the facility, a scandal in itself.

We know, 100 percent, that this is true, but it hasn’t become an issue.

Next, there might have been a rescue attempt and a firefight between American forces and that militia group in which casualties would have occurred on both sides. (Note that, as far as we know, the militia took no killed or wounded, meaning that in its own eyes it achieved a total victory at no cost.) At any rate, the United States would then have been in a military conflict with that militia. It would have to demand that the Libyan government take action and cooperate with U.S. efforts to punish it. On one hand, that would have been a headache for the Libyan government; on the other hand, it might have brought welcome aid to suppress a troublesome militia and help in getting control of the anarchy in the country (see below).

Congress would have given full bipartisan support to punishing those found responsible by a quick and conclusive FBI investigation, support including putting forces on the ground in Benghazi.

Instead?

In practice, U.S. policy is still acting as if it believed the attack was due to a video creating a spontaneous riot and not a terrorist attack!

Note — and this is pivotal — the scandal is not restricted to what happened on September 11, 2012, and the Washington cover-up that followed. It extends to the result of cover-up.

As a result of the cover-up, there has been no effort made to punish those who we know have murdered four Americans.

Think about that point. You cannot punish the terrorists if you haven’t officially deemed them responsible for the attack, and when an Egyptian-American provocateur who is supposedly the real guilty party is in prison already. Meanwhile, Libya is suffering serious problems that are undoing whatever good the Obama administration’s intervention to overthrow the old regime achieved.

Even as the Benghazi scandal is growing in the United States, the situation in Libya is deteriorating further. Ignoring the actual threat of revolutionary Islamist militias and attributing problems to a video, plus the botching of the investigation of the attack due to the cover-up, led to mishandling post-attack U.S. Libya policy. As a result, the terrorists who murdered four Americans are going free and the group that carried out the attack is still enjoying popularity and even playing a role in running Benghazi.

Libya itself was the biggest donor to the Muslim Brotherhood-led, U.S.-handpicked Syrian opposition, and is a source of a massive outflow of arms to terrorists.

In other words, as a result of the policy failure and cover-up, Libya faces a much greater threat of a revolutionary Islamist takeover, anarchy, and even becoming an al-Qaeda base. (Imagine, for comparison, the situation if the U.S. government had denied al-Qaeda involvement in earlier terrorist attacks.)

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (6)
All Comments   (6)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Libya is pals with the Muslim Brotherhood/Al Qaeda. Obama has had the same MO regarding outing the MB/AQ all along. If you DON't NAME AN ENEMY? The Underpants bomber, Boston Bombers and anything and everything in between has been deep-sixed and scurried through the "civilian trial" route for the very reason that it can be kept quiet and associations to the MB/AQ cannot be made. The Muslim Brotherhood has intimidated our own government into submission to their agenda; both at home and abroad. One salient fact remains: the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda are still around and they are ONE entity supporting each other in every aspect of their subversive and destructive work. Obama really DOES have some 'splainin' to do; he knows it and he's scared to death of doing it.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Diana West: "There is more at work here than a foundationally flawed strategy. In its drive to win Islamic hearts and minds, COIN doctrine has become an engine of Islamization inside the U.S. military. To win a Muslim population's "trust," U.S. troops are taught deference to Islam -- to revere the Quran; not to spit [or pee] toward Mecca (thousands of miles away); and to condone such un- or anti-Western practices as religious supremacism, misogyny, polygamy, pederasty and cruelty to dogs. Our military has even permitted Islamic law to trump the First Amendment to
further COIN goals, as when ISAF commander Petraeus publicly condemned an American citizen for exercising his lawful right to freedom of speech to burn a Quran.

This explains why the reports that CIA director David Petraeus went before the House Intelligence Committee in September and blamed a YouTube Muhammad video for the deadly attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, sounded so familiar. Whatever his motivation, it was all too easy for Petraeus to make free speech the scapegoat for Islamic violence. But so it goes in COIN-world, where jihad and Shariah (Islamic law) are off the table and the First Amendment is always to blame. If there is a lesson here, it is simple: A leader who will betray the First Amendment will betray anything."
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"if [!] Obama had said it was a terrorist attack back in September of 2012"

You know it's gonna be a quality* article when the first sentence starts building the foundation for the piece on a false premise. There's no "if" here! The administration called the attack an "act of terror" from day 1, and an attack by Ansar-al-Sharia (not just the vaguer "extremists" used previously) by 3 days after the Susan Rice appearances.

I know that won't get reported in Agenda Media, but it's pretty trivial to confirm for those willing to get outside the bubble.

* conspiracy-mongering
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"The administration called the attack an "act of terror" from day 1"

Simply not true. This has been proven false by video after video of Obama afterwards saying, "I dunno." He mentioned act of terror, but he did not label the attack as such. He has a real problem in communication, because he uses a lot of passive voice. His whole communication style is to vote "Present". IOW, he purposely avoided explicitly stating what it was.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Ladies and Gentlemen - the greatest scandal of our time. An existential crisis about the interpretation of "passive voice" and whether "act of terror" is the same as "terrorist attack". An "unprecedented" coverup that lasted a maximum of three days in which "indications" of Ansar-al-Shariah's involvement were reported as "indications" of extemist involvement. A shocking dereliction of talking point duty that, contra Einstein, cost the lives of 4 Americans 5 days after the fact.

It's like Watergate times Watergate... to the Watergate.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Frankly, nothing will be done. The current regime will continue the cover up & the republicans will eventually just forget about it. No one will EVER be held accountable. It is sad to say, but lying, covering up & transferring blame is at the very core values of this regime. And, w/ the help of the blind MSM, they will win in the end. Just wait & see...
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
View All