Analysis Of Obama’s Benghazigate Cover-up

Analysis Of Obama’s Benghazigate Cover-up

A List Of The National Security Issues Involved In Obama’s Benghazigate Cover-up
1. The failure of President Obama’s Arab Spring-Foreign Policy.
2. The fallacious foundation of Obama’s national security policy toward Islam, concealing the true aggressive, imperialistic character of Islam.
3. The blatant, dishonest effort to mislead the American people about the cause of the Benghazi Islamic terrorist attack and the death of four Americans.
4. The Obama regime’s continuing effort to stifle honest discussion of the U.S. national security implications of the Islamic Quran’s and Sharia’s clearly hostile contents.
5. The State Department’s security planning failures preceding the Benghazi attack.
6. The failure of the Obama regime to react to the seven-hour attack to protect U.S. Government personnel.
7. The Obama regime’s continuing dishonesty in deceiving the American people about what actually occurred at Benghazi and why.

» If you like this article, please donate to Right Side News Daily

Analysis Of The Issues

1. The failure of President Obama’s Arab Spring-Foreign Policy.

The Benghazi Islamic terrorist attack exposes the failure of Obama’s Arab Spring-Foreign Policy that includes his unauthorized war of intervention to depose Gaddafi, a U.S. ally. Obama’s ill-conceived policy has enabled Islamic jihadist groups that are al-Qaeda-affiliated, like Ansar al-Sharia, to completely control the jihadist safe-haven in Eastern Libya. But this Arab Spring-Foreign Policy failure spreads far beyond Libya to include the Muslim Brotherhood’s dictatorial take-over of Egypt, the green light to the Muslim Brotherhood’s Hamas jihadists to conduct missile terror attacks on Israel, the unimpeded progress of the Iranian mullahs to acquire nuclear weapons, the Iranian domination of Iraq following Obama’s precipitous withdrawal of U.S. troops, the impending take-over of Syria by the Muslim Brotherhood, and the imminent defeat of U.S. forces in Afghanistan at the hands of Taliban/al-Qaeda forces.

2. The fallacious foundation of Obama’s national security policy toward Islam, concealing the true aggressive, imperialistic character of Islam.

The following Obama quotes attempt to vindicate Islam and distance the religion from its almost 1400-year history of hate, violence, aggression, and barbarity:

• "Islam has always been part of America"
• "we will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities"
• "These rituals remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings."
• America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings."
• So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed"
• "Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity and racial equality"
• "As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith."
• "I look forward to hosting an Iftar dinner celebrating Ramadan here at the White House later this week, and wish you a blessed month."
• "That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear."
• "I also know that Islam has always been a part of America's story."

Except for the above expressions of Obama’s personal feelings, it doesn’t get any more dishonest than this. To borrow Mary McCarthy’s pithy description of a rival’s work, “every word . . . is a lie, including 'and' and 'the'.” When the above Obama quotes about Islam are combined with Obama’s words at the UN, which were, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,” it becomes an inescapable but to conclude that Obama is actually attempting to get the West to adopt the Islamic Sharia’s blasphemy law against any criticism of Islam. In view of Obama’s many pronouncements, it is impossible to dismiss Obama’s unnatural mania for Islam. To say that Obama is a pandering Islamophile does not begin to adequately describe Obama’s obsession.

3. The blatant, dishonest effort to mislead the American people about the cause of the Benghazi Islamic terrorist attack and the death of four Americans.

The failed Arab Spring-Foreign Policy of the Obama regime is constructed on a brazen deception that conceals Sharia-mandated Islamic jihad; therefore, every jihadist attack must be made to appear to have been provoked by non-Muslims, hence the Obama regime manufactured the false narrative that an unknown video was the cause of the Benghazi attack.
The American people have been subjected to a transparently conspiratorial attempt at blaming a fictional, spontaneous mob reaction to some obscure Internet video, which mocked Muhammad, for the Benghazi Islamic terrorist attack and death of four Americans. This deception is an integral part of the Obama regime’s national security fabrication to conceal the existence and adversarial nature of Islamic Sharia-mandated jihad. Consequently, the entire Team Obama has engaged in manic attempts to deceive the American people about the attack-causal role of the Internet video, including when the president shamefully lied to the world before the UN in alleging that the anti-Muhammad video motivated the U.S. ambassador’s murder by an outraged Muslim flash mob! Obama clearly put the blame on video-attack-causation with these words:
That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.
This bold-faced lie was foisted on a global audience two weeks after it was “self-evident” that the Benghazi attack was conducted by terrorists, according to Obama’s own public relations flack, Jay Carney. But Obama’s video-attack-causation lie to the UN is apparently exposed as mendacity by Obama himself in the second presidential debate with Mitt Romney on October 16^th when he asserted:
Obama: "The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened -- that this was an act of terror -- and I also said that we're going to hunt down those who committed this crime."

Romney: "I think interesting the president just said something, which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror."

Obama: "That's what I said."

Romney: "You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you're saying?"

Obama: "Please proceed, governor."

Romney: "I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror."

Obama: "Get the transcript."
There is no reconciling Obama’s claim that he said it was a “terror attack” in a speech to the nation on September 12^th with his asserting the pernicious video-attack-causation lie to the UN on September 25^th! So, was Obama lying on the 12^th or on the 25^th! Actually he was lying on both dates as well as on October 16^th at the second presidential debate! When one takes Obama’s instruction and gets the September 12^th Rose Garden transcript, one finds these words from Obama, “I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans . . . While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. . . .” In Obama’s statement that, “While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others,” it is obvious that he is propounding the video-attack-causation lie which lays the blame on an anti-Islamic, provocative action committed by an American, and he is not referring Islamic terror.
But the UN debacle was not the only international calumny committed by Obama. Again, after it was indisputably clear to U.S. Intelligence that the Internet video played no part in inspiring the Benghazi attack, Obama and Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, disgracefully paid U.S. taxpayer dollars to appear on Pakistani television to perpetuate the video-attack-causation lie, unnecessarily provoking even more hostility in the Islamic world against the U.S. in the commission of this mendacity!
And then, two weeks after the Benghazi attack when the preplanned terrorist involvement was beyond question, there were the ludicrous TV performances of the U.S. UN Ambassador, Susan Rice. Obama called on Rice to robotically repeat the mindless video-attack-causation lie on five different Sunday morning TV talk shows, disgracing herself, her office, the Obama regime, and the United States in the process!

4. The Obama regime’s continuing effort to stifle honest discussion of the U.S. national security implications of the Islamic Quran’s and Sharia’s clearly hostile contents.

The following is an account of how far Obama and his regime have gone to flush the fact of Islamic jihadist imperialism down the “Orwellian Memory Hole”:
“ . . . in order to continue on the irresponsible course of being ‘Islam-ignorant,’ the Obama National Security Council removed terms like ‘militant Islamic radicalism’ from the 2010 National Security Strategy and substituted ‘violent extremism’ and (undefined) ‘terrorism’ in an effort to deny and conceal the cause of the on-going war against America, and that cause is, the ‘theo-political-military imperialist doctrine’ laid out in the Quran and Islamic Sharia. From there the Obama administration’s obstructive effort becomes even more serious when Islamist and militant Arabic groups, representing the jihadist Hamas and Hezbollah terror organizations, demanded that the FBI purge its training materials of all information which the Islamists found offensive to their ‘religious sensibilities.’ To his ever-lasting disgrace, FBI Director Mueller complied with these Islamic demands, undoubtedly carrying out with his superiors’ policy.
“But it is at this point that the U.S. national security establishment descends to its all-time nadir when President Obama, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, acquiesced to the stipulations in a October 19, 2011 letter to the White House, signed by 57 Muslim organizations, demanding that all training materials not meeting their approval be “purged” from the curricula of U.S. military schools and that instructors ‘guilty’ of teaching the Islamic Sharia to U.S. military officers be ‘effectively disciplined.’ Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley, Joint Forces Staff College instructor, was selected as the ‘guilty’ scapegoat to meet the Islamists’ punishment demand. Here is where it gets beyond outrageous. General Martin Dempsey proved himself to be the U.S. lackey-equivalent of Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel, Chief of Staff of the German Armed Forces High Command under Fuhrer Adolph Hitler, when he ‘personally attacked’ Lt. Col. Dooley on C-Span television, May 10, 2012, during a Pentagon News Conference. Obviously Dempsey was subserviently executing ‘his leader’s’ orders to suppress the truth about Islam. Lt. Col. Dooley’s ‘crime’ in Obama’s and Dempsey’s eyes was to present Islam in an accurate way that displeased Islamists in his Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism course. When America’s top ranking military officer publically rebukes a much junior officer on live television, which is absolutely unprecedented, it sends the unmistakable message to all officers in every military service that to be a truth-teller about Islam is a career-ending offense in the Obama military.”

5. The State Department’s security planning failures preceding the Benghazi attack.

In the months prior to the September 11^th attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, the U.S. facility was physically attacked twice with explosives, the British diplomatic mission and Red Cross were both attacked and consequently closed their operations in Benghazi, several firefights raged through the streets of Benghazi, there were approximately ten Islamist militias and al-Qaeda training camps within Benghazi surrounding the U.S. facility, on August 8^th the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, signed a two-page cable that he titled "The Guns of August: Security in Eastern Libya." In it, Stevens noted a dangerous "security vacuum" had developed in and around Benghazi.
Additionally, a August 16^th cable to the office of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from the embassy in Libya reported that the State Department's senior security officer "expressed concerns with the ability to defend post in the event of a coordinated attack due to limited manpower, security measures, weapons capabilities, host nation support and the overall size of the compound." It is almost incomprehensible that Obama and Clinton could have left the U.S. mission in Benghazi so ill-prepared after Stevens had communicated to Washington on June 25^th, “Until the GOL (Government of Libya) is able to effectively deal with these key issues, the violence is likely to continue and worsen” and on September 4^th Stevens’ aides also notified Washington that there was a “strong Revolutionary and Islamist sentiment" in Benghazi!
All of these precursors to the September 11^th attack make understanding why the State Department denied repeated requests from Libya for more diplomatic security resources in Benghazi all but impossible! Vice President Joe Biden’s statement, “We weren't told they wanted more security. We did not know they wanted more security,” just strains credulity to breaking. It is either a monumental lie, or an admission of breathtaking incompetence.

6. The failure of the Obama regime to react to the seven-hour attack to protect U.S. Government personnel. 

The failure to send a rescue force and then apparently lying about it to the American people are both counts of malfeasance that are impeachable offenses, in the opinion of former top federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy. In a local Denver television interview Obama was asked:
Question: “Were they [the Americans in Benghazi] denied requests for help during the attack?”
Answer: “Well, we are finding out exactly what happened. I can tell you, as I've said over the last couple of months since this happened, the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives.
“Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. Number two, we're going to investigate exactly what happened so that it doesn't happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice. And I guarantee you that everyone in the State Department, our military, the CIA, you name it, had number one priority making sure that [our] people were safe.”
Obama has never identified when exactly the “minute” was that he found out what was happening in Benghazi, nor has he specified whom he ordered at that minute to make sure that we were securing our personnel in Benghazi? Two more very pertinent questions that Obama has thus far successfully avoided is who carried out President Obama's order to secure our personnel, and what exactly did they do to accomplish his order?
Obama’s actions in this tragedy will have to be accounted for in detail to the American people before this matter can be laid to rest.

7. The Obama regime’s continuing dishonesty in deceiving the American people about what actually occurred at Benghazi and why.

Unfortunately, it is this last issue that has pushed onto stage center and captured the majority of the media’s scrutiny and coverage. The unfortunate aspect in this otherwise beneficial media coverage is that the Obama’s regime’s dishonesty is so wide-ranging that subjects of secondary importance have the potential to distract attention from the core of Obama’s foreign policy duplicity.
The subjects of lesser importance being publicized by the media include the extramarital affair between CIA Director David Petraeus and his biographer Paula Broadwell, the strange liaison between U.S. commander of forces in Afghanistan, Gen. John Allen, and the Tampa socialite, Jill Kelley, the changing Intelligence Community-produced “Talking Points” given to Susan Rice to deceive the U.S. public on Sunday talk shows, the apparent lie by Petraeus about his changing judgments about the cause of the Benghazi attack to buttress the Obama regime’s video-attack-causation lie, and Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, changing his story to provide cover for the White House’s denial of complicity in the video-attack-causation lie contained in the bogus Intelligence Talking Points. (In the interest full disclosure, James Clapper and I were schoolmates as lieutenants in Air Force Signals Intelligence training.)
For me as a retired military officer, I am extremely disappointed by Petraeus’ changing his story from the video-attack-causation motivation in a congressional appearance one month to knowing all along that it was jihadist terrorism in a second congressional appearance the next month. I am equally troubled by Clapper’s denial of knowledge of the perpetrator of the Talking Points changes one week to volunteering to take the fall for the Obama White House as the culprit the next week. Both of these officers occupy positions of the greatest importance to U.S. national security, and it is vital that they have total credibility, not only for the president, but also for the American people’s congressional representatives. After their widely conflicting testimonies to congress, that credibility is entirely destroyed.

Conclusions

First, the most plausible explanation as to why the U.S. mission in Benghazi was denied the level of protection that the threat situation mandated is that increasing physical security in Libya would run counter to Obama’s false Arab Spring-Foreign Policy mantra. Obama has sold the foreign policy fiction to the U.S. public that all is well in “Islamdom” with democracy and freedom taking root as a result of Obama’s wise “leading from behind” strategy. Admitting that there was a deteriorating security situation, especially in Libya, would give the lie to Obama’s deceitful narrative. Furthermore, downplaying the Islamic jihadist threat overseas, as well as in the U.S., supports Obama’s fundamental foreign policy premise that Islam constitutes no threat to national security. Moreover, it is a travesty that the nation’s two top intelligence officials, Clapper and Petraeus, signed on to such a dangerous subterfuge.
Second, the important point to remember when the media floods the information market place with all of the secondary subjects is not to lose sight of the two most important issues in Benghazigate: 1) Obama has constructed U.S. national security policy vis-à-vis Islam on extremely bowdlerized, false versions of the Islamic Quran and Sharia that have no basis in fact, and 2) Obama’s behavior during the Benghazi crisis has raised potential regime-changing questions that demand answers.
Col. Thomas Snodgrass, USAF (retired), was stationed in Peshawar, Pakistan, working daily with Pakistani military personnel for more than a year; additionally, he was an Intelligence Officer and an International Politico-Military Affairs Officer serving in six more foreign countries during a thirty-year military car

eer.