The smoking gun of the Benghazi cover-up

By: Patrick J. Buchanan
11/2/2012 04:03 AM

On June 6 of this year, a bomb planted at the U.S. compound in Benghazi ripped a 12-foot-wide hole in the outer wall.

On June 11, the British ambassador’s motorcade was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade, wounding a medic and doctor. The next day, the ambassador was gone and the British Benghazi post was closed.

At the same time, the Red Cross, after a second attack, shut down and fled the city.

“When that occurred,” says Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, who headed the military security team in Tripoli, “we were the last flag flying in Benghazi; we were the last thing on their target list to remove.”

On Aug. 15, at the U.S. compound in Benghazi, an emergency meeting was convened to discuss the 10 Islamist militias and their training camps in the area, among them al-Qaida and Ansar al-Sharia.

On Aug. 16, a cable went to the State Department describing the imminent danger, saying the compound could not defend itself against a “coordinated attack.”

The cable was sent to Hillary Clinton — and signed by Ambassador Chris Stevens.

On Sept. 11, Ambassador Stevens died in a coordinated attack on the Benghazi compound by elements of Ansar al-Sharia and al-Qaida.

Catherine Herridge of Fox News, who unearthed the Aug. 16 cable, calls it the “smoking gun.”

Yet, on Oct. 11, Joe Biden, during the vice presidential debate, asserted, “We weren’t told they wanted more security there.”

While House spokesman Jay Carney said Biden’s “we” applied only to Biden, Obama and the White House. As the National Security Council is part of the White House, Carney was saying the NSC was in the dark over the Aug. 16 cable that had warned about the exact attack that occurred.

What else have we lately learned?

The State Department was following the Benghazi assault in real time.

Three emails came from the compound that night. The first described the attack; the second came as the firing stopped; the third reported that Ansar al-Sharia was claiming credit.

From an Oct. 26 report by Jennifer Griffin, also of Fox News, we now know there were two drones over Benghazi the night of Sept. 11 capable of sending pictures to U.S. commanders within reach of Benghazi, and to the CIA, Pentagon and White House.

We also know that ex-SEAL Ty Woods, in the CIA safe house a mile away, was denied permission to go to the rescue of the compound, and that he disobeyed orders, went and brought back the body of diplomat Sean Smith.

After the attack on the compound, the battle shifted to the safe house — for four more hours. Another ex-SEAL, Glen Doherty, made it to Benghazi from Tripoli. Seven hours after the initial assault that killed Ambassador Stevens and Smith, Doherty and Woods were still returning fire, when, having been abandoned on the orders of someone higher up, they were killed by a direct mortar hit.

Due to stonewalling and the complicity of the Big Media in ignoring or downplaying the Benghazi story during the last weeks of the campaign, the Obamaites may get past the post on Nov. 6 without being called to account.

But the truth is coming out, and an accounting is coming. For the character, competence and credibility of Obama’s entire national security team have been called into question.

Hillary Clinton said she takes full responsibility for any security failure by her department at the Benghazi compound. But what does that mean? Did she see the Aug. 16 secret cable sent to her by Stevens describing his perilous situation? Was she oblivious to the battle in her department over security in Benghazi?

This failure that occurred in her shop and on her watch, that Stevens warned about in his Aug. 16 cable, resulted in his death and the most successful terrorist attack on this country since 9/11.

Why has Hillary not explained her inaction — or stepped down?

The CIA has issued a terse statement saying it gave no order to anyone not to try to rescue the ambassador or not to move forces to aid Doherty and Woods, who died because no help came.

Who, then, did refuse to send help? Who did give the orders to “stand down”?

The president says he is keeping Americans informed as we learn the truth. But is that still credible?

When did Obama learn that State was following the Benghazi attack in real time, that camera-carrying drones were over the city that night, that a seven-hour battle was fought, that desperate cries for help were being turned down.

The CIA had to know all this. Did Tom Donilon of the NSC not know it? Did he not tell the president?

Five days after Benghazi, Susan Rice went on five national TV shows to say the attack was a spontaneous protest over an anti-Muslim video.

Did the president not know she was talking nonsense? Could he himself have still been clueless about what went on in Benghazi?

 

(All of this info is out there yet.... mainstream networks spend as little 2 minutes on this story during their nightly news broadcasts. Remember the coverage of GW and his DUI revelation in 2000 – it was wall to wall for days leading up to the election.)

 

Report: Benghazi Consulate Warned of Imminent Terrorist Attack Three Hours Before Raid

•  
• Guy Benson
  Political Editor, Townhall.com

Nov 02, 2012 04:04 PM EST

And another part of the cover-up crumbles. If you haven't already, go back and ready myfive-point omnibus post from earlier to get up to speed on how the administration's Benghazi narrative is coming apart at the seams -- thanks largely to an avalanche of leaks from people in the know who refuse to be scapegoats. If Jake Tapper's "drip, drip, drip" analogy is appropriate, here's another major splash from Fox News' Jennifer Griffin this morning. The first portion of the clip is rehashing some of the information we've seen over the last day or so; it's the back half that contains several important items:

 

Fox News has learned that US military intelligence was reporting as early as 7pm Eastern -- less than four hours after the attack

began -- that Ansar al Sharia carried out the attack. The intelligence was relayed to the military with no caveats, according to a source

familiar with the intelligence. Further, two State Department cables show that Stevens' team warned Washington...US intelligence

officials confirm to Fox that in fact there were reports from the ground in Benghazi three hours before the attack on the

consulate that a Libyan militia was gathering weapons and gathering steam.

So not only did the administration know within 24 hours that this had been an act of terrorism, they knew within four hours which specific Islamist group was responsible for the raid. (Remember, those August cables mentioned at least ten active jihadist militias in the city). The US staff in Benghazi sent explicit warnings about a lack of security at the consulate in August, as requests for reinforcements were being routinely denied. They also fired off urgent cables mere hours before the assault began, informing Washington that a terrorist attack had been set into motion. Why do these details matter? Because the White House -- the president, the Secretary of State, the UN Ambassador -- continued to insist for days that this 9/11 terrorist attack was connected to (non-existent) spontaneous protests over an obscure online video. Clinton even denounced the video while standing next to the caskets of the fallen upon their return. This was a completely false storyline, pushed for reasons that remain unclear -- although I think the motives are becoming more readily apparent by the day. The president has said that his administration has been fully transparent, updating the public on critical information as it's come in -- even feigning great offense that anyone would suggest otherwise. The flat truth is that his White House has done nothing of the sort. Let's recall this assertion from White House Press Secretary Jay Carney three days after the massacre:

The White House on Friday said a report stating the president failed to act on knowledge of a potential attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya was “absolutely wrong.” White House press secretary Jay Carney said there was “no actionable intelligence” ahead of the attack that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens. “There was no intelligence that could in any way have been acted on to prevent these attacks,” he said. “The report was false.”

We now know that there was intelligence. Lots of it -- not only in the weeks leading up to the coordinated ambush, but in the hours before it unfolded. That intelligence was bolstered throughout the seven-hour ordeal, during which people "at the most senior level" of the administration denied multiple desperate pleas for back-up for reasons that remain an infuriating mystery. The president still isn't answering questions on this front, seeking political refuge in a haze of "ongoing investigation" obfuscation. It seems theLas Vegas Review-Journal's scathing assessment of our current Commander-in-Chief is very much on target. Parting thought: Are the CIA and State Department "going to war" over this?

UPDATE - Fox News' panel of Kirsten Powers (a Democrat) and Judith Miller (a Pulitzer Prize winner, formerly of the New York Times)

just lambasted the media for deliberately ignoring his enormous story to protect their preferred candidate through the election. Some

reporters like Eli Lake, Sharyl Atkisson, Jake Tapper and others are doing excellent work on this, but it is strangely not breaking through

into major coverage -- with the exception of Fox, which has treated this seriously. By comparison, Jonah Goldberg recalls the mad

feeding frenzy over George W. Bush's decades-old DUI revelation in the closing days of the 2000 campaign. It's not a secret what's going

on here:

(video clip on website.....)

 

Again, these are not conservative partisans predictably ripping the "lamestream media." This is a Democratic strategist and a long-time MSMer being honest about what is playing out before their eyes, plain as day.