Alan Keyes
GOP complicit in Benghazi cover-up?
'What did they know and when did they know it?'
By Alan Keyes
In a post published on my blog in May 2013, I wrote about the Obama administration's Benghazi cover-up: "They seek to hide and distract attention from their faction's collaboration with key elements of the global infrastructure of terrorism (including, in connection with al-Qaida, the very forces responsible for the 9/11 attacks in the U.S.)."
I thought of this as I read Jerome Corsi's report about the declassification of documents showing that the Obama administration aided the rise of ISIS. In the article, Mr. Corsi quotes Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, who observed:
"If the American people had known the truth – that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other top administration officials knew that the Benghazi attack was an al-Qaida terrorist attack from the get-go – and yet lied and covered this fact up – Mitt Romney might very well be president. These documents also point to a connection between the collapse in Libya and the ISIS war – and confirm that the U.S. knew remarkable details about the transfer of arms from Benghazi to Syrian jihadists."
Fitton concludes by saying that the declassified documents "show that the Benghazi cover-up has continued for years and is only unraveling through our independent lawsuits."
But back in 2013 when I wrote about the purpose of the Benghazi cover-up, I also noted the incongruous reaction of key GOP leaders in Congress:
"Sen. John McCain cheerfully smiles upon Hilary Clinton despite the lies deployed at the behest of officials subject to her authority. Rep. Darrell Issa inscrutably declares that neither Obama nor Clinton are targets of the search for truth about the Obama administration's decision to leave an American ambassador naked to our enemies. This contributes to a 'business as usual' atmosphere in which it is supposed to be unthinkable to consider the possibility that the ambassador's fate is a portent of the fate intended for the American people and our way of life."
I'm sure that some of you assume that the nonchalance of the GOP's leaders has a simple explanation: They were simply unaware of the Benghazi station's role in shipping supplies to the anti-Assad jihadists in Syria. My experience dealing with national security affairs makes that hard for me to believe. To be sure, things may have deteriorated enormously since my government service during the Reagan years. But given the obvious political repercussions, it makes sense to assume that Obama and Hillary Clinton would take steps to cover their political backsides by making sure a few key leaders in the U.S. House and Senate were brought into the loop.
After all, Saudi Arabia was probably a key player in the effort to supply the Sunni Muslims opposing Assad and his Shiite Iranian backers. People such as those Rand Paul recently decried as "the hawks in my party" might very well have appreciated the cold-blooded nerve required for a policy of helping our enemies in al-Qaida destroy our enemies in Syria. (Just to be clear, I think Netanyahu got it right during his recent visit: Sometimes the enemy of our enemy is still our enemy.) They might also have reveled in the thought that Obama and Clinton were the ones who would have to "take one for the team" (in this case the elitist faction interests they all serve) if and when the Benghazi cover story was blown.
Well, that cover is blown. The GOP's habitually self-serving quisling leadership want us to accept the line that it was all Hillary Clinton's fault. This despite the fact that the secretary serves at the pleasure of the person who occupies the Oval Office. Barack Obama bears the ultimate responsibility for the use or abuse of the U.S. government's executive power. Barack Obama must have approved his secretary of state's collaboration with America's terrorist enemies. Barack Obama must have signaled his assent to the years of stonewalling required to prevent the Benghazi cover-up from unraveling prematurely.
But what if the GOP leadership had deployed the impeachment process to launch a national inquest into what can be portrayed as traitorous policies that serve to give aid and comfort to enemies of the United States? Would the truth have come to light sooner? Would it have come out in time to prevent ISIS thugs from murdering a multitude of innocent Christians, Yazidis, and even fellow Muslims? Would it have come in time to keep ISIS from graduating out of the junior leagues (to which Obama snidely assigned them) to become a major threat that is now extending itself to reach within the borders of the United States?
Who knows? All we know for certain is that the GOP leadership steadfastly, adamantly refused to meet their constitutional responsibility. If their excuse is ignorance, why did they reject the most effective means to remedy their ignorance? What if they did so precisely because key GOP leaders in Congress knew something of the U.S. government's role in supplying arms to the anti-Syrian jihadists? What if they did so because, by laying off Obama and his cohorts, they were averting scrutiny of their own complicity?
Given this possibility, critical questions cry out for true answers: Were key congressional leaders briefed on the Benghazi operation? If so, what did they know and when did they know it? If so, is their guilty complicity still preventing an effective U.S. response to the regime of atrocious terrorism that now threatens to blight what's left of decent order in a world now descending into a sinkhole of fanatical violence?
In last week's column, I reacted against the view that effective oversight exists in the U.S. government to prevent NSA's mass data collection activities from threatening the constitutional rights, privileges, and immunities of people in the United States. Is that the same "effective" oversight meant to assure that the U.S. government's covert activities do not verge into atrocity and treason? If oversight failed, with literally atrocious results, when it comes to the Obama faction's scheme to arm the our terrorist enemies, what reason have we to believe it is succeeding when it comes to upholding the constitutional provisions that secure liberty itself?
June 1, 2015
In a post published on my blog in May 2013, I wrote about the Obama administration's Benghazi cover-up: "They seek to hide and distract attention from their faction's collaboration with key elements of the global infrastructure of terrorism (including, in connection with al-Qaida, the very forces responsible for the 9/11 attacks in the U.S.)."
I thought of this as I read Jerome Corsi's report about the declassification of documents showing that the Obama administration aided the rise of ISIS. In the article, Mr. Corsi quotes Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, who observed:
"If the American people had known the truth – that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other top administration officials knew that the Benghazi attack was an al-Qaida terrorist attack from the get-go – and yet lied and covered this fact up – Mitt Romney might very well be president. These documents also point to a connection between the collapse in Libya and the ISIS war – and confirm that the U.S. knew remarkable details about the transfer of arms from Benghazi to Syrian jihadists."
Fitton concludes by saying that the declassified documents "show that the Benghazi cover-up has continued for years and is only unraveling through our independent lawsuits."
But back in 2013 when I wrote about the purpose of the Benghazi cover-up, I also noted the incongruous reaction of key GOP leaders in Congress:
"Sen. John McCain cheerfully smiles upon Hilary Clinton despite the lies deployed at the behest of officials subject to her authority. Rep. Darrell Issa inscrutably declares that neither Obama nor Clinton are targets of the search for truth about the Obama administration's decision to leave an American ambassador naked to our enemies. This contributes to a 'business as usual' atmosphere in which it is supposed to be unthinkable to consider the possibility that the ambassador's fate is a portent of the fate intended for the American people and our way of life."
I'm sure that some of you assume that the nonchalance of the GOP's leaders has a simple explanation: They were simply unaware of the Benghazi station's role in shipping supplies to the anti-Assad jihadists in Syria. My experience dealing with national security affairs makes that hard for me to believe. To be sure, things may have deteriorated enormously since my government service during the Reagan years. But given the obvious political repercussions, it makes sense to assume that Obama and Hillary Clinton would take steps to cover their political backsides by making sure a few key leaders in the U.S. House and Senate were brought into the loop.
After all, Saudi Arabia was probably a key player in the effort to supply the Sunni Muslims opposing Assad and his Shiite Iranian backers. People such as those Rand Paul recently decried as "the hawks in my party" might very well have appreciated the cold-blooded nerve required for a policy of helping our enemies in al-Qaida destroy our enemies in Syria. (Just to be clear, I think Netanyahu got it right during his recent visit: Sometimes the enemy of our enemy is still our enemy.) They might also have reveled in the thought that Obama and Clinton were the ones who would have to "take one for the team" (in this case the elitist faction interests they all serve) if and when the Benghazi cover story was blown.
Well, that cover is blown. The GOP's habitually self-serving quisling leadership want us to accept the line that it was all Hillary Clinton's fault. This despite the fact that the secretary serves at the pleasure of the person who occupies the Oval Office. Barack Obama bears the ultimate responsibility for the use or abuse of the U.S. government's executive power. Barack Obama must have approved his secretary of state's collaboration with America's terrorist enemies. Barack Obama must have signaled his assent to the years of stonewalling required to prevent the Benghazi cover-up from unraveling prematurely.
But what if the GOP leadership had deployed the impeachment process to launch a national inquest into what can be portrayed as traitorous policies that serve to give aid and comfort to enemies of the United States? Would the truth have come to light sooner? Would it have come out in time to prevent ISIS thugs from murdering a multitude of innocent Christians, Yazidis, and even fellow Muslims? Would it have come in time to keep ISIS from graduating out of the junior leagues (to which Obama snidely assigned them) to become a major threat that is now extending itself to reach within the borders of the United States?
Who knows? All we know for certain is that the GOP leadership steadfastly, adamantly refused to meet their constitutional responsibility. If their excuse is ignorance, why did they reject the most effective means to remedy their ignorance? What if they did so precisely because key GOP leaders in Congress knew something of the U.S. government's role in supplying arms to the anti-Syrian jihadists? What if they did so because, by laying off Obama and his cohorts, they were averting scrutiny of their own complicity?
Given this possibility, critical questions cry out for true answers: Were key congressional leaders briefed on the Benghazi operation? If so, what did they know and when did they know it? If so, is their guilty complicity still preventing an effective U.S. response to the regime of atrocious terrorism that now threatens to blight what's left of decent order in a world now descending into a sinkhole of fanatical violence?
In last week's column, I reacted against the view that effective oversight exists in the U.S. government to prevent NSA's mass data collection activities from threatening the constitutional rights, privileges, and immunities of people in the United States. Is that the same "effective" oversight meant to assure that the U.S. government's covert activities do not verge into atrocity and treason? If oversight failed, with literally atrocious results, when it comes to the Obama faction's scheme to arm the our terrorist enemies, what reason have we to believe it is succeeding when it comes to upholding the constitutional provisions that secure liberty itself?
To see more articles by Dr. Keyes, visit his blog at LoyalToLiberty.com and his commentary at WND.com and BarbWire.com.
© Alan KeyesThe views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
