What Else Can I Say?

Well ladies and gentlemen, all of the key indicators are there.

 

In essence, whenever the word “gate” is added as a suffix to a word, it’s pretty much a foregone conclusion that the situation at hand has been elevated to that of a scandal.

 

Benghazi-gate is the term I’ve seen batted around on the wonders of the worldwide web lately.

 

Even though the matter has been bandied about over the last several weeks, I think it’s necessary to paint the picture here to help make my point.  I keep it pretty high level.

 

Just a few weeks ago, US embassies in Benghazi (the one in Libya) and Cairo were attacked under what can only be characterized as an act of terrorism.  As a result, four people died.  A US Ambassador was among the victims.

 

Initially, the line from the Administration and it’s State Department was that the incident was the result of a spontaneous riot.  Various officials from each of the aforementioned consortiums have paraded themselves out to the podium blaming the spontaneous riot on a video on YouTube which is quite critical of Mohammad.

 

Now, as the incident enters our rear view mirror, spoon fed nuggets from the Administration and it’s State Department now fall in line with that which is painfully obvious.

 

It was terrorism.

 

In looking up the spelling of “Benghazi” for this particular post, I ran across an article about the attacks and the way the Administration initially responded to it.

 

That article is here.

 

For those of you who can’t see leaving such a kick ass site such as this one to go read a news article, I’ll summarize.  I only do that on the condition that you go read the article later.

 

The article reports that the Administration moved swiftly upon hearing of the attacks in order to track down the who, what, where, and why behind the entire incident.  They approached it at that time as terrorism.

 

Ok, fine.

 

Operating under that premise, I have no problem accepting the fact that the powers that be weren’t very forthcoming in sharing their gameplan and intelligence.  I hold the same opinion about  the missing weapons of mass destruction from the early days of the Iraqi war.  I believe they were there and we either found them, or we know exactly where they are.

 

Tipping our hand to the bad guys isn’t a good idea in any situation.

 

Here’s my problem though.

 

The article makes the case that maybe the Obama Administration isn’t as inept at these matters as all of the detractors suggest.  The problem is that there have been plenty of news stories in the last week suggesting that the US had intelligence of the planned attack well before it actually happened.  A personal diary of the late Ambassador supposedly alludes to concerns for his safety as well.  Even if the intelligence for the specific attack wasn’t available, common sense dictates that security on the anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in American history be elevated will into the stratosphere for all of our interests, especially in the middle east.

 

Yet one of the stories coming out of the attacks tells us that the Marines guarding one of the embassies weren’t allowed to be loaded for bear, or even loaded.

 

Why in tarnation does that sound so familiar though?

 

I haven’t dug it up on the internet yet, but wasn’t there a story in the 90’s back when Hillary was the First Lady that she objected to some of her guards being armed?  I guess I have a research project to conduct.

 

The point I was making before Hillary so rudely interrupted the blog here, is this.  Why wasn’t security elevated?  Why did anyone have to die?

 

But wait.  There’s more.

 

We’re still under the premise that the higher up muckity mucks are throwing the media and the worldwide public a rope-a-dope on the source of the infection so as to not let the bad guys know that we’re on to them.

 

To perpetuate the rope-a-dope, we are then told about the stupid film on YouTube.  Various talking heads who in one way or another hold a certain level of celebrity take to Twitter or whatever calling for the arrest of the filmmaker.

 

Dumb asses.

 

Get this part though.

 

Knowing better, the administration endeavors to have YouTube pull the video.  They film a commercial or some sort of PSA for Pakistani television admonishing the video.  The even send law enforcement to the filmmaker’s abode in the middle of the night and bring him in for questioning.

 

Oh, did I say questioning?  I’m meant “photo op”.

 

As I understand it, the filmmaker is in jail now.  I don’t believe the charges involve the fact that he made a movie insulting Islam though.  I’m pretty sure he’s in there assault and battery on the institution of filmmaking in general.  I’ve done better myself just by filming my pit bull and her laser eyes with my iPhone.

 

Seriously, now.

 

All of this to perpetuate a lie and cover up the real supposed intelligence gathering that’s going on in the background is what the article suggests to me.

 

Naturally, the whole narrative requires a willing suspension of disbelief.

 

Even still, here’s what I want to know.

 

If the Administration first blamed the attack on this video, and they’re now coming around to throwing us a bone and fessing up that it was actually a terrorist attack, don’t you think they owe the filmmaker an apology for turning his life upside down with assaults on his First Amendment rights?

 

Something tells me that ain’t gonna happen.

Randy Tharp

TharpSter is a husband to one woman, a father to two kids, a master to two dogs, an occasional cubical occupant, and unable to make up his mind on an adequate theme for this website.

Type something witty and eye catching right here: