HIDING UNDER FIRE

The House Intelligence Committee heard testimony from ex-CIA director Michael Morell on the Benghazi "talking points"  as to why the public was mislead over the Libyan terror attack. When Morell was asked why he drafted a fictional narrative of the Benghazi attack as a protest caused by a video, instead of the truth that it was a planned terror attack, he denied it involved political collusion with the White House.

He explained with the same smarminess of IRS Douglas Shulman's Easter egg roll comment, that he ignored the information that it was a planned attack from Chief of Station in Libya and instead changed the "talking points" to comport with Washington analysts speculating from afar, that it was a protest not a terror attack. He claims that the Washington CIA analysts (not him or White House) decided that the attack was a protest caused by a video even after he requested they re-analyze that finding in light of the information on the ground. 

In a clever but morally vacant argument he told House members that the White House and the State Department contributed only small minor changes in editing the "talking points" (such as changing Consulate to diplomatic post). Yet, what he failed to mention, (fortunately House members understood)  that by the time White House and State looked at the briefing it had already been fixed, doctored, ghostwritten and made to read as fiction for the administration. Fiction I might add that fit the Obama administration's narrative and excuse for inaction.

Michael Morell is a career civil servant and some might say one doesn't advance a long career in government without learning how to expertly dance the sycophantic salsa. One may or may not believe in outlandish conspiracies, and we are all quite familiar with fortuitous coincidences yet, this ex-CIA Chief (currently a CBS analyst) bends credulity like a clown making balloon animals. 

      

His revelations leave Americans to only two conclusions, either the CIA is corrupt and should be referred to as the Central Indoctrination Agency, or the CIA is incompetent and filled with civil servants that have their socks lettered left versus right, making them the Central Idiocy Agency. 

     

There is no question that Michael Morell thinks that both Congress and the American people would have to have a head full of rocks to believe his protestations that there was no political expediency playing out over Benghazi during Obama's 2012 re-election campaign. 

The reason for the Benghazi lie was not only to match the Obama narrative on the campaign trail that al-Qaida was defeated and on the run, but also to provide an excuse for dereliction of duty. The public disinformation by the CIA that Benghazi was a protest also gave cover and excuse to why the President did not send military help to our embattled men. For a sitting President to know America is under attack and do nothing is shameful cowardly dodge of duty. However, no one expects that the president should militarily react to every spontaneous Muslim protest around the world, right? 

Unfortunately for the President and former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton the childish tactic of blaming a group of unknown Washington CIA analysts for providing bad misinformation doesn't pass the RPG (Rocket propelled grenades)smoking smell test. The administration had a drone watching the attack, they had both State and CIA operatives reporting real time that it was planned aggression and the attacks were multiple.

Equally contrary to the Obama administration and his former Secretary of Defense, that claimed we had no assets available to assist our embattled men, Americans are revolted that this administration did not even try to send rescue. To this day the question of where the President was during this crises remains a mystery.

 

Intelligent Americans know that military operations covert or not are never surgically precise and antiseptic. Many things can go wrong and do. Yet, being a Commander in Chief means that a President's political fallout is secondary to his duty as leader of our national interests. Has this President been leading America or handled by his party's operatives?

We know that before the Osama Bin Laden raid there were many earlier operational opportunities to catch him that were nixed by Valerie Jarrett. Indeed, many Presidents have had their covert military blunders that hurt them politically such the failed Carter hostage rescue and Clinton's Mogadishu raid in Somalia to capture Aidid.

Therefore during the height of Obama's re-election campaign, after he had involved us in a UN led war in Libya, after he had proclaimed that al-Qaida was decimated and on the run and after he took almost personal credit for getting Osama, does anyone believe he wanted to test his political fate by sending military rescue to Benghazi, especially during a close re-election race?

Did Valerie Jarrett advise her dear leader that he should stand down? Did Hillary Clinton worry that her part of the Benghazi political mess would only be more messy if the military got involved? What difference does it make? Well, brave men's lives were sacrifice for political careers and that is the difference between honor and respect versus sniveling snakes of evil expedient callousness.  

 The "talking points" are revealing a greater virus present in our government that should alarm all Americans regardless of political party. That trust is truth and truth is trust and that they are inseparable. We know our government holds back secrets in our national interest but we don't expect our government to lie to us about straightforward events. We don't expect our government to lie to us when we are attacked. We should never expect or ever allow, our government to lie over the graves of brave fighting men. 

 

No Benghazi is not a phony scandal Mr. President and Yes, the American people will continue to demand answers as to where you were hiding when America was under fire!