To The Daily Sun,
Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. The House Intelligence Committee's final Benghazi report supposedly exonerates our State Department of any wrongdoing. The liberal letter writers to this paper appear absolutely giddy. There, "I told you so" smugness about this "phony scandal" strikes at the heart of the "liberal progressive superiority complex." It also strikes at the heart of all that is decent and necessary for the protection of all who go into harms way to secure our safety and liberty.
Here comes the mainstream media flying above the fray on gossamer wings with their White House coattails flapping in the wind. As Daniel Greenfield notes, "The report concludes that there was no intelligence failure because there was no specific warning that an attack would occur on September 11. Aside from the stream of contradictory and conflicting intelligence afterward." Yet the media reports the findings as though everything is hunky-dory and the left does cartwheels cross the floor.
The "stand down order" has become the Saul Alinsky progressive semantic distraction du jour. We never told the them to "stand down" which means "do nothing" To Tripoli you should go, but to Benghazi, well no. Meanwhile, back on the "keeping it real ranch," the report actually does say that there was inadequate State Department security.
Let's engage in some critical thinking and bona fide research. Those would be the two bullet points that the liberal writers are constantly imploring those on the right to try. I checked out the Daily Signal's "26 Ways the Media Botched Their Reporting on the Latest Benghazi Report." I took a look at the book, "13 Hours" by Mitchell Zuckoff and Mark "OZ" Geist. They were part of the annex security team that survived. Mark has had more than a dozen surgeries with more to come. They were there that night. Lou Dobbs said the book brings to life the horror and carnage of that night. It left him in awe for the heroes, sorrow for the dead and utter disgust for the security breakdown. Mitchell and Mark believe many more lives could have been saved absent the "stand down" orders or rather the orders to be patient and do something else.
In Sharyl Attkisson's book, "Stonewalled," book reviewer Elise Cooper said Sharyl wonders why we (1) still do not know what President Obama was doing during the attack; (2) what decisions did he make while Americans were under attack on foreign soil; (3) why is the White House withholding photos taken at the White House that night and surveillance videos taken in Benghazi that were promised for release; (4) why did they stay so long with the "caused by a video" narrative; (5) why did this administration put our ambassador in harm's way in the first place? Answers to these questions might explain why President Obama felt confident enough to fly to a Vegas fundraiser the next day.
Remarkably, we still cannot get an honest answer from this administration as to how and why the U.S. got involved in Libya in the first place. Please spare me the "Gadhafi imminent bloodbath" scenario falsely proffered by our president. If our commander-in-chief were really compassionately motivated by such reasons, he would have been in involved in the Iranian "green revolution." Democrat Alan Kuperman's book, "The Limits of Humanitarian Intervention" has already debunked that false talking point, according to Jack Cashill.
Finally, Benjamin Weingarten of the Blaze.com asks these questions. 1. Why was the U.S. trusting a group called the February 17th Martyrs Brigade to guard U.S. diplomatic/intelligence personnel in Benghazi? 2. How is it possible that terrorists could storm right through the gates of the U.S. Special Mission and overtake it? 3. Why did Ambassador Stevens' security at the compound consist of only five Diplomatic Security agents with little significant field experience, and eight ultimately ineffectual Libyan guards? 4. Why were the special operators at the CIA annex who were ready to rush to the Special Mission to save Ambassador Stevens and others instructed by the CIA base chief, "Bob" to wait three times while our men languished? 5. Has the government ensured that such glaring security failures will never be made again?
Apparently, Carol Stappi has no such concerns because she seemingly has been convinced that our government acted appropriately during this massacre and will do so again during future massacres by radical Jihadist terrorists. Are you all feeling comforted now?
Elise Cooper states, "If one compares the Obama administration's first accounts of the Benghazi fiasco, the pages from a novel, if you will, to the facts that have trickled out since, the contrast is stark." The Daily Signal mentions, "... although USA Today claimed the committee 'cleared the Obama administration of any wrongdoing,' the actual report makes numerous references to administration officials doing things wrong. Mainstream news reported that Republicans had exonerated the Obama administration on all counts. House Intelligence Chairman Mike Rogers stated in an op-ed on Dec. 10th, "Some have said the report exonerates the State Dept. and the White House. It does not".
I am not the least bit heartened by Carol Stappi's apparent trust in this administration. To the point where she feels confident enough to trash Steve Earle's character after he questions the veracity of these findings. I am however terribly dismayed with the way this administration's clueless foreign policy actions continue to threaten our national security.
Now the dilemma for Henry Osmer. Is it really Russ writing this letter or Steve himself? Only his therapist/psychic/private eye/conspiracy team can know for sure.