On September 11, 2012, a terrorist group attacked the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, killing four Americans, including U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens. Much controversy has surrounded this case, including the reason behind the attack, and the investigation into it during the following months. The first explanation for the attack was a protest about an anti-Islamic video produced in the United States. However, as new details and accounts emerged from the investigation, the attack was later referred to as terrorism.
The thought that comes to my mind is where did they obtain the evidence to rule this attack as a mere protest gone wrong? From an investigative standpoint, motivation for a crime (in this case, terrorism) cannot simply be determined in a day or two after the event. So why did this administration put U.N. ambassador Susan Rice in a position to say this attack was merely a protest over a video that very few people had even heard of? Knowing that terrorism is commonplace against Americans in the Middle East, and that September 11 is a day of victory for the Islamic world, it would have made more sense for the attack to be primarily labeled as a terrorist attack, and not just a mere escalated protest.
The investigation into the attack has been underway for months, but recent testimony from whistle-blowers on the case shows that they were threatened by the Obama administration in light of revealing information on the attack. What immediately comes to my mind when I see these reports is that if people are being threatened for cooperating and contributing to a terrorism investigation, something is seriously wrong. No matter what political alignment is in power, an investigation into the murder of four Americans by radical terrorists should not be hindered, or involve personal threats. When someone is trying to obstruct justice by making threats against those who are going to help advance the investigation, it is blatantly obvious that someone is trying to cover-up their own actions or inaction.
What is even more alarming is that the mainstream media sources like ABC, MSNBC, CBS etc. have been going along with what the Obama administration has been saying (or not saying) all this time. There is no question that these news sources are very left-leaning, but not reporting information about a terrorist attack is just plain unethical. In a way, by not asking the hard questions about Benghazi, they are almost indirectly helping the administration slip away involving the attack. Only a few sources like Glenn Beck’s The Blaze, and Fox News have been attempting to uncover evidence regarding the case.
The story about the attack on the Benghazi consulate has not died though. There are still people, regular citizens and government officials alike, who are still demanding answers regarding the attack. A recent Fox News report states that four State Department and C.I.A officials have hired lawyers regarding testifying about the attack. These four are just some of those who have been rumored or reported to receive threats from the Obama administration. Knowing that there have been these threats, we the people must ask ourselves if we can keep putting our trust in these people. If they want to suppress the truth, why do people trust what they say regarding any issue that has a truth aspect to it? What this case basically comes down to is that if you have to do something in secret and lie about it, it’s very likely you should not be doing that.