benghazi hearings

What did the Benghazi survivors see?

benghazi2Now that Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., has revealed that survivors of last year’s deadly attack in Benghazi, Libya, were compelled to sign non-disclosure agreements that prevent them from talking about the attack, the questions are clear: What did the survivors see, and what was the Obama administration’s imperative for silencing them? The answers to the first question may, of course, provide answers to the second.

 

The evasion, equivocation and outright deceptions proffered by the administration on Benghazi thus far have piqued the suspicions of some and convicted the administration in the eyes of others. Myriad scenarios have been entertained in the minds of the curious and conspiracy theorists alike, but the fact is that the administration, by its actions, has inspired all of these.

 

So let’s factor this new information into that with which we are already familiar – limited though it may be – and see what shakes out.

 

There was no doubt a wide assortment of personnel on the ground at the Benghazi compound on the night of Sept. 11, 2012. In addition to military and intelligence assets, such facilities require clerical, information technology, facilities, transportation and even janitorial support personnel. Many of these probably did not have very high security clearance, but given their proximity, they would observe day-to-day occurrences at the compound and would necessarily have a handle on everything that transpired, even if from a casual perspective.

Read more…

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, Obama

Benghazi and Boston: Maintaining the Momentum

When President Obama jokingly referred to himself as a former “Muslim socialist” at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner on April 27, several publications later quoting him scrubbed the word “Muslim” from the text. Why? Did editors perceive something imprudent with respect to their agenda in advertising that tidbit? Would there have been something offensive in representing Obama’s utterance of Moosleem in those characteristic, dulcet tones?

It’s not like his affected accent would have translate into print…

All kidding aside: The House Oversight Committee hearings this week on the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya were extremely revealing on three levels. One, of course, was the information finally revealed as the whistleblowers were identified and Americans were able to hear their riveting accounts of the events on the ground that night.

benghazi3Two: Though it has been established that perhaps a majority of Republican lawmakers are treasonous, progressive whores, it appears that there are at least a few who are serious about preserving the republic and who grasp the gravity of the Obama administration’s crimes. This is not only gratifying, but certainly could be integral to extricating this obscene cabal.

Three is the absolute treason of the press. This may not be surprising to the reader, given their comportment in recent years, but their level of abject propaganda and obsequious toadying during the hearings was unparalleled. Few of the alphabet television networks touched on the hearings at all, and those that did relegated much of their coverage to hidden nooks and crannies on their websites.

Read more…

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, Obama

The beginning of the end of Obama’s reign?

benghazi2

Earlier this week, Fox News Channel analyst Brit Hume asserted that for the investigation of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, “to become the scandal it surely deserves to be,” it will require relentless news coverage.

Hume is quite right, of course; however, there is another requisite for definitive results to develop with regard to Benghazi, and that is the willingness of Congress to see the process through to a just conclusion.

And what would be a just conclusion?

I suppose that depends on two things: One, what is revealed in the hearings, and two, whom one asks. I have always leaned in the direction of the administration having orchestrated the attack for reasons of its own – given his connections to the Muslim Brotherhood and legendary understanding of all things Islamic, it is possible that President Obama could even have arranged for the assault on the compound without the foreknowledge of his Cabinet.

A bold charge, to be sure, but I am operating with such questions as the unresolved Trinity United murders before me. Then there are the possibilities that the tragedy came about as the result of less grave criminal action or a series of irresponsible and craven decisions.

The burning question at present (and which may remain so for some time) is why efforts were not made to rescue the beleaguered staff at the facility and whether or not a stand-down order was given to military personnel in the area. If the latter becomes the case, then obviously we want to know who issued the order. Depending on the outcome, measures might be as severe as charges filed against Cabinet officials or the impeachment of Obama himself. While this president reasonably deserves to be occupying a cell in some federal penitentiary anyway, impeachment presents many troublesome aspects.

Read more…

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, Tyranny