Many things about the Benghazi murders do not add up and trying to reason them through is difficult since we have so little information from the field.
However within the last day or so the State Department has released the transcript of a phone call in which 2 State Department officials (unnamed) detailed the events of September 11 to the press. This conference call was the one in which (I believe) Fox News was excluded.
Having read the entire transcript of the conversation, I can say that the media certainly asked the right questions in these interviews. When did the help arrive, was increased security requested, how long did it take for the White House to get this information...
That the media has acted as if this scandal is immaterial or insignificant is quite revealing in itself; may a pox be on their houses for not doing the job they are paid to do.
They knew; they haven't bothered to adequately report this story.
It is being speculated that the Obama administration was working on a deal to exchange the blind Sheik for an American hostage....one who hadn't been taken yet.
And one who wind up dead because 2 Navy Seals who weren't supposed to act as security fought back, thus ruining the October surprise.
Before you poo-poo this, you should read Doug Ross's accounting of how this makes sense, considering that a negotiated hostage release would be another scalp for Obama. He could claim he negotiated with the terrorists and came out the winner.
How could Obama go casually to bed upon hearing these men were missing the night of the murders?
And how could he so casually jet off to Las Vegas for a fundraiser, giving the men a brief shoutout before his stump speech to an adoring audience?
Consider this also.
We'd been hearing rumors for months that the Obama administration was negotiating to release the blind sheik; horror that this administration would do this first bubbled up in the conservative blogosphere about a week after the murders.
In fact, we know that Egypt terror groups had been petitioning for the release of the blind sheik as far back as June of this year, according to USA Today, which also reported (via Commentary) that the release of the Sheik was the real reason for the riots in Cairo:
The protest outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo was announced Aug. 30 by [Gamaa Islamiyya], a State Department-designated terrorist group, to protest the ongoing imprisonment of its spiritual leader, Sheikh Omar abdel Rahman, who is serving a life sentence in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.Remember also that the State Department issued an apology for the You Tube video before the Cairo riot and before Stevens was murdered.
Now a look at Doug Ross's post gives us some rationale for this line of thinking including the following thoughts:
Why are there now so many conflicting stories between State, the White House and the CIA about what actually happened?
Why were repeated requests for additional security denied?
In the transcript of the State Department phone call to selected journalists, the security officers clearly state that Benghazi officers were on the phone reporting the invasion of the murderers the minute it happened.... Indeed, the transcript almost reads like a movie script, so filled with heroic actions and twists and turns is it.
The transcript also clearly states that it was "not their [Embassy security officers'] conclusion" that the cause of the uprising was the YouTube video, which appears more and more like a cover story for the debacle that actually occurred.
And from the transcript we learn that at the beginning of the attack, which would continue from about 9:30 at night until 4:00 a.m., personnel in the TOC called Washington while it was happening to inform them of events:
As those guys attempt to secure a perimeter around Building C, they also move to the TOC, where one agent has been manning the phone. I neglected to mention from the top that that agent from the top of this incident, or the very beginning of this incident, has been on the phone. He had called the quick reaction security team, he had called the Libyan authorities, he had called the Embassy in Tripoli, and he had called Washington. He had them all going to ask for help. And he remained in the TOC.Yet The Daily Mail reports this regarding the Biden/Ryan debate exchange and the fact that Stevens himself and others "expressed concerns" about security:
The heated debate exchange came just hours after presidential candidate Mitt Romney launched his own denunciation of Barack Obama's response to the attack, saying the administration 'failed to grasp the seriousness of the challenges that we face'.
Earlier this week, it was revealed that Stevens himself expressed concerns about security at the facility.
Also, the head of a special operations team helping out with security asked for 'more, not less' reinforcements before the government pulled dozens from Libya earlier this year.
But Biden, when asked about it by debate moderator Martha Raddatz, said: 'We weren't told they wanted more security there.'During the hearings last Wednesday, the Embassy Security Officers said this about their confrontations with State Department:
Ex-Embassy Security Officer: "We couldn't keep what we had."
Washington: "You're asking for the sun, moon and the stars. "
Security : We were fighting a losing battle. WE WERE NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO KEEP WHAT WE HAD." [after asking to keep the security they had and for an additional 12 agents]
Security: The most frustrating part of this ...dealing with the people, program and personnel who are supposed to be supporting me [in protecting Benghazi-my inference]. For me, the Taliban is on the inside of the building."Why would it be asking "the sun, moon and the stars" to get an additional 12 security officers in Benghazi, given the recent uprising and given that a Marine detachment is stationed in Paris and expensive Chevy Volts were being installed at the Vienna embassy?
Why were they "not even allowed to keep what they had?"
How does it make sense, in a war torn part of the world like Libya which had so recently undergone the fateful "Arab Spring" and murdered its leader to not have additional security on September 11?
How is it that Biden and Obama and, yes, Mrs. Clinton, are escaping hard questions?
- Why wouldn't Clinton have informed the President?
- If she didn't inform him, (which no one believes), why not?
- What kind of an organization is Obama running if State knew from the moment the uprising began that it wasn't about a stupid video and didn't tell him?
- Where are the hard questions, Martha Radditz, asking Joe the plagiarist Biden and Barack Hussein Obama why they DIDN'T know if they didn't??
- What kind of an organization is Obama running if his people put expensive "green" cars in an embassy in Vienna but repeatedly refuse to protect his people in war torn Middle Eastern countries?
This was murder, whether part of a conspiracy to make Obama look good or not.
One has to wonder why the Martha Radditizs of the world are not interested in asking the hard questions.
First discussed at Free Republic and HillBuzz.