Why Benghazi should matter to every American

The mainstream media declared the Benghazi story insignificant long ago. To the extent it is covered, the focus is usually on the horrific and unnecessary deaths of four Americans. The Obama administration dismisses it as a lot of fuss about a few silly talking points.
But everybody is missing the big-picture story of the Benghazi affair and its cover-up. It’s about the White House using the intelligence community for its own political purposes, and lying to the American public in order to win an election. It’s about abuse of power, and that is a big deal.
That’s why the administration cannot be allowed to investigate itself. That’s why it is time for Congress to appoint a special committee to get to the bottom of the story.

Benghazi is no longer just a political issue. It’s not just a partisan witch hunt. It goes to the heart of what our system of government is all about.

If it turns out that Benghazi and the cover-up were just a series of junior level mistakes, that is the end of it. But if it turns out the administration was using the military and intelligence communities for political purposes prior to the attack, during the attack and in a subsequent cover-up, it must be held accountable. Because once the precedent is set, future administrations will feel no reluctance to do the same.
America has the most powerful military and intelligence services in the world, probably in the history of the world. They have an infrastructure that endures separately and beyond any administration or politician. 
At the same time, the military-intelligence complex takes its orders from the American people, through their elected/appointed representatives in the White House and Cabinet. 
It’s a sacred trust at the heart of our Constitution, as set out in civilian control of the military. But it comes at a price – that our civilian leaders do not abuse that power and bend the military and intelligence communities to do their political dirty work.
The president doesn’t order the military to seize political opponents. He doesn’t order his intelligence community to lie about national security for political purposes. He uses the military or intelligence communities to protect the United States and our citizens, not to help him win elections.
That’s the heart of the Benghazi scandal and cover-up. The White House twisted intelligence to suit its political needs.
I was part of the Nixon administration during Watergate. I was a junior staffer on the National Security Council and helped keep the classified files. At the heart of the Watergate investigation was the president’s abuse of power – secretly using the intelligence community for political purposes and then using the intelligence community for cover when it became public.
It was a difficult time for the nation, and certainly for anyone in the White House. But it was necessary, especially in hindsight. It wasn’t just about a president lying to the American people. It was a check on the seemingly unlimited power of the president to use the military and civilian career government bureaucracy for his own political goals.
It is now incumbent on the congressional leadership to act. There have been countless hearings into Benghazi by numerous congressional committees, but none have had subpoena power to demand the paper trail, or to force government workers to testify about what they knew and when they knew it.
The questions at the heart of the Benghazi scandal and cover-up are specifically:
1. Did the White House fail to provide adequate security at the Benghazi consulate because it didn’t want to acknowledge that a terrorist threat remained, even though Bin Laden was dead?
2. Did the White House order the intelligence community to change its analysis so the president could claim his policy was a success,  rather than a failure, just a few weeks before an election?
3. And, finally, what was the relationship between an overzealous White House staff and the president himself? What did the president know, and when did he know it?
This is no longer just a political issue. It’s not just a partisan witch hunt. It goes to the heart of what our system of government is all about. That’s why it’s time for Congress to act and create a bipartisan special committee to get to the bottom of this, once and for all. 
That’s why Benghazi matters.

Benghazi Cover Up

GOP rep wants to cut funding for federal ‘paramilitary units’ after BLM dispute

A Republican congressman wants to crack down on the proliferation of armed law enforcement units within the federal government, on the heels of the standoff last month between supporters of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and a federal land agency. 
Both sides of that standoff -- agents with the Bureau of Land Management, and states' rights protesters who streamed into Nevada -- were armed, leading the BLM to back down for fear of violence. 
But Utah GOP Rep. Chris Stewart told The Salt Lake Tribune that the BLM doesn't need an armed unit in the first place. He's reportedly looking at ways to cut funding for what he calls "paramilitary units" and require them to rely on local law enforcement instead. 
"There are lots of people who are really concerned when the BLM shows up with its own SWAT team," he told the newspaper. "They're regulatory agencies; they're not paramilitary units, and I think that concerns a lot of us." 
The bill could apply to a host of federal agencies, including the BLM, IRS and others. 
FoxNews.com previously reported, followed controversy over a separate armed raid by the EPA last year in Alaska, that 40 federal agencies have armed divisions. This includes nearly a dozen typically not associated with law enforcement. 
The agencies employ about 120,000 full-time officers authorized to carry guns and make arrests, according to a June 2012 Justice Department report. 
Though most would expect agents within the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Bureau of Prisons to carry guns, agencies such as the Library of Congress and Federal Reserve Board also employ armed officers.    
Among those with the largest armed units are the Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management and Park Service. 
A BLM spokeswoman told the Tribune that the BLM and Park Service had law enforcement on the scene in Nevada to ensure safety -- and that, with just 300 officers covering millions of acres of public land, they already coordinate with local law enforcement. 
But Stewart says they should be able to rely on the local sheriff in these types of incidents. 
Other lawmakers, though, are focusing more on the armed militia members who showed up to protest agents taking Bundy's cattle over a grazing fee dispute. 
KLAS-TV in Las Vegas reported that Sgt. Tom Jenkins, of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, said officers were concerned for their lives. 
"We didn't show any fear that day, but I can tell you, we all thought in the back of our minds, we all thought it was going to be our last day on earth, if it went bad," he reportedly said.

'Anti-Islam' Filmmaker Blamed for Benghazi Attacks Vows to Finish Controversial Movie

By Stoyan Zaimov, Christian Post Reporter

June 11, 2013|1:41 pm

The filmmaker behind the controversial "Innocence of Muslims" film, the trailer for which was initially blamed for the violence that led to four Americans being killed at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in September 2012, has said that he is not anti-Muslim and wants to finish up his movie. His mission is to fight terrorism.
"It is not [a] religion movie," Nakoula Basseley Nakoula shared with Fox News. "I have a lot of Muslim friends and not all the Muslims believe in the terrorism culture. Some of them believe in this culture. That's why we need to fight [against] the culture, not the Muslims. My enemy is the terrorism culture; this is my enemy."
In September 2012, Muslim extremists stormed the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, killing U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. After Anti-American protests ranged in front of other Western embassies in the Middle East, reports came out linking a trailer for "Innocence of Muslims" as a motive behind the attacks.
The movie, which apparently depicts the Prophet Muhammad "as a child of uncertain parentage, a buffoon, a womanizer, a homosexual, a child molester and a greedy, bloodthirsty thug," was financed partially by an Israeli-American real estate developer in California, who said that he raised $5 million from 100 Jewish donors to make the film, and called Islam a "cancer."
The Obama administration initially singled out the film for the hostilities aimed at the U.S. embassies, but then admitted that terrorist attacks were behind the violence. Nakoula, a Coptic Christian born in Egypt who came to the U.S. in 1984, was sentenced last November to one year in prison for lying to his probation officer and using fake names in the production of the film. The filmmaker, who must also serve another four years of supervised release following his prison term, insisted that he is going to finish up the film.
"I am the blood voice for everybody who gets killed, or hurt, in this culture," the filmmaker said. "I dedicate my life to fight with this culture … I'm never afraid."

Follow us Get CP eNewsletter ››

Nakoula continued, "Of course I'm proud of it. If I could go back, I would do it again. Everybody gets hurt in this culture. We need the world free of this culture. We have to fight it."
The Egyptian-born man thanked the U.S. government for protecting him following the scandal surrounding the film, revealing that they have treated him "very good." Nakoula added he is "sorry to everybody" who got harmed during the wave of violence in September 2012, especially the Americans who died in Benghazi.

 

White House on defense over new Benghazi emails, claims controversial ‘prep call’ not about attack

The White House found itself on defense Wednesday following the release of emails tying a top aide to former U.N. ambassador Susan Rice's controversial Sunday show statements after the Benghazi terror attack. 
During those interviews, Rice erroneously blamed the attack on protests over an anti-Islam film. New emails indicate a White House adviser helped prep her for those appearances and pushed the "video" explanation -- and now, the White House is facing credibility questions after having downplayed their role in Rice's "talking points." 
During a heated briefing with reporters Wednesday afternoon, Press Secretary Jay Carney repeatedly tried to claim that the so-called "prep call" with Rice -- as it was described in one email -- was not about Benghazi. The prep session, he said, was just about the demonstrations elsewhere in the Muslim world that week.   
"It is not about Benghazi -- it is about the protests around the Muslim world," Carney claimed. 
The White House has said all along that Rice relied on the best available intelligence, from the intelligence community, when she discussed the Benghazi attack. 
But the documents obtained and released by conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, included a Sept. 14, 2012, email from White House aide Ben Rhodes, an assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for strategic communications. 
The Rhodes email, with the subject line: "RE: PREP Call with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 pm ET," was sent to a dozen members of the administration's inner circle, including key members of the White House communications team such as Carney. 
In the email, Rhodes specifically draws attention to the anti-Islam Internet video, without distinguishing whether the Benghazi attack was different from protests elsewhere. 
The email lists the following two goals, among others: 
"To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy." 
"To reinforce the President and Administration's strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges." 
Republican critics, who have long claimed the administration's narrative was politically motivated, pointed to that email as a "smoking gun." 
But Carney insisted that the Rhodes email was distinct from the intelligence community talking points in that it referred to preparing Rice for questions about the protests elsewhere. 
"They were about the general situation in the Muslim world," Carney said, going so far as to read headlines from stories at the time that highlighted those protests -- underscoring that they were a big news story at the time. 
He declined to answer directly when asked if the White House would correct the record regarding statements downplaying its role in the talking points. He did acknowledge what was evident from the Rhodes email -- that "the White House had a role in that document, obviously."
House speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, issued a statement Wednesday night saying, “Four Americans lost their lives in Benghazi, and this White House has gone to extraordinary lengths to mislead, obstruct, and obscure what actually took place.
 During the week of the Benghazi attack, protests had broken out by U.S. embassies in several countries in Africa and the Middle East, including intense demonstrations in Cairo. But by the time of Rice's Sunday show appearances, the death of a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi was the dominant story -- Carney faced skepticism in the briefing room in claiming that the Rhodes email was not referring, at least in large part, to that. 
Further, the document sent to Judicial Watch was released in response to a request for records pertaining to Benghazi. 
And the same memo was sent to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, likewise, following a subpoena seeking Benghazi documents. 
"If this is not a smoking gun, proving beyond any doubt, the story told by the administration about Benghazi was politically motivated and fabricated, nothing will ever prove that," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said. 
On the heels of the email release, Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., renewed his call for a select committee to be established to investigate. He wrote House Speaker John Boehner a letter saying "it is now abundantly clear that senior White House staff were directly involved in coordinating the messaging in response to the Benghazi attacks and were actively working to tie the reason to the infamous Internet video." 
The "video" explanation, though, was not only coming from the White House. Late on Sept. 11, 2012, when the attack was still going on, Hillary Clinton's State Department issued a statement that read: "Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to an inflammatory material posted on the internet. ... let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind." 
Fox News' Catherine Herridge contributed to this report.