Lies and Videotape

I was hopeful that the Benghazi hearings last Wednesday would yield so much enlightenment that the media would say, “Oh, now I see what you’ve been saying; this is really wrong.” I am overly optimistic that way. The media who filled the Pravda role all along checked for marching orders this time as well. And the new line seems to be, “These aren’t the droids you’re looking for.” Or, in plain English, “Sure, it shows some mistakes were made, maybe some incompetence, but there’s no real scandal here.”

I don’t know what could rise to the level of scandal in their parallel world. For me a few new details have brought up enough new questions for further investigation.

I want to back up first, to Egypt and the protest there.

On September 10, 2012, there was a report in Egyptian media that there would be a protest about the imprisonment of the Blind Sheik, who had perpetrated the first World Trade Center bombing. It was organized and planned, and unrelated to any obscure video.

Promptly following the planned protest in Cairo on September 11, the administration came out with an apology for a specific video that, between its online posting on July 2^nd and September 10^th (time to build up enough indignation to bring about a protest) had only received 17 views. [The link I used for this detail in October 2012 no longer exists.]

Even though the protest wasn’t related to this video, the administration was aware of it and ready with an apology, and a promise to prosecute the perpetrator (who sits in jail still, technically on unrelated “parole violation” charges). And then the administration used this video again as the explanation for the terrorist attack on the Benghazi embassy.

This isn’t an error. We now know that the description of events was scrubbed of any mention of terrorism or Al-Qaeda connection. Also deleted was any mention of prior requests for increased security over several months, even predating Ambassador Stevens’ replacing the previous ambassador to Libya, including specific requests in the couple of days leading up to the attack.

There was live real-time contact and surveillance informing the state department of what was happening in Benghazi. It was known immediately that it was a planned, heavily armed, terrorist attack. Never did anyone at the scene, or observing it, or aware of it, suppose it was a spontaneous protest that suddenly arose from people on the street for any reason.

Yet, out of thin air the administration decries this anti-Muslim video, with promises to prosecute the perpetrator, who, by inciting the protest, is culpable for the mayhem, including the deaths of four Americans.

During the attack, nearby military was ready to take off to mount a rescue. The battle continued for 6-8 hours; help arriving any time during that span could have saved lives, even though it is likely Ambassador Stevens was beyond rescue. Twice the rescuers were told to stand down. This order came from someone, but we haven’t been able to follow the line of authority to a decision-maker yet.

How did the administration become aware of this obscure video, when so few viewers had seen it online that apparently even most of the actors in it hadn’t bothered to view it? And why did the administration claim a protest planned and carried out for a previously known purpose was a spontaneous reaction to this video? And then why did they claim that a terrorist attack on our embassy was a spontaneous reaction to an unseen video?

Compared to the siege, the heroes who were killed, and so many details of the Benghazi story, the video seems a small peripheral detail. But if we understood the use of this video, we would understand this administration and its nefarious purposes.

Someone was assigned the task of finding an anti-Muslim video that could be used as a scapegoat at an opportune moment. At some point, well ahead of time, there must have been a planning session, an assignment made, and an employee (or more) set to the task of searching out such a thing to be used if/when the need should arise. (How many of the 17 views were administration minions carrying out their search?)

One would assume that situation room planners, holding the information that security needed beefing up in Libya, and was particularly dangerous in Benghazi, with specific information about a possible attack 2-3 days in advance, with the significant date of the anniversary of the 9/11 attack coming up, that someone would plan for various scenarios—including an attack on various embassy locations. I have no satisfactory explanation for why security was not beefed up, per repeated requests.

Since danger was known, one would assume that situation room planners would include protocol for reacting to an embassy attack, and on such a date have forces ready to react. But no such response protocols seem to have been in place; if they were, they were not followed.

Why is it acceptable with the administration to appear so incompetent that they hadn’t even considered the possibility that there would be an attack on or near 9/11 in a place that was requesting more security and giving warnings of a possible attack?  One could assume that the truth is worse than looking incompetent.

We don’t have a clear answer as to why the ambassador went into the extra dangerous Benghazi location on the vulnerable date. What was he attempting to accomplish that was worth such a risk? (Speculation here, from late October 2012 by Glenn Beck.)  I don’t know if we’ll get these questions answered, and more.

But the questions about the administration’s use of the videotape relate to just how deep into tyranny we already are. Spending war room planning time coming up with ways to blame American citizens—in ways that implicate the natural rights guaranteed us by God, and spelled out in the basic law of our land—is not the behavior of a freedom government. Only a tyranny would act this way. Getting the truth about the finding and using of this videotape would uncover the tyrannical power usurpation being carried out in darkness.