Senate Report on Benghazi Confirms Obama's Core Belief

Senate Report on Benghazi Confirms Obama's Core Belief

On Monday, the Senate released its Special Report on the Terrorist Attack at Benghazi.  The report is not definitive; there is much information that has yet to be released and/or investigated, but there is one preeminent fact that pervades the entire document and is a damning indictment of the Obama Administration: its refusal to acknowledge that Islamic terrorism is thriving. The Obama Administration would like the American public to believe that Al Qaeda is the sole purveyor of Islamic terrorism and that by the assassination of Osama Bin Laden, they have successfully sounded the death knell of Islamic terrorism.

This attitude, which governs the Obama Administration’s foreign policy and domestic policy at the expense of the truth, provides a neat cover for Obama’s tacit encouragement of the Islamist takeover in the Middle East and his attempts to stifle criticism of Islam in the United States. Thus, when the Benghazi attack occurred, it became vitally necessary to blame an American video; when there was ample warning of the dangers surrounding the Benghazi outlet they were ignored, when the attack occurred, there was no word from the White House that they would respond forcefully.

Keeping that overriding attitude of denial of Islamic terror in mind, here are some statements from the report that fit the profile of the Obama Administration as neglecting the Islamic threat:

In the months leading up to the attack on the Temporary Mission Facility in Benghazi, there was a large amount of evidence gathered by the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) and from open sources that Benghazi was increasingly dangerous and unstable, and that a significant attack against American personnel there was becoming much more likely. While this intelligence was effectively shared within the Intelligence Community (IC) and with key officials at the Department of State, it did not lead to a commensurate increase in security at Benghazi nor to a decision to close the American mission there, either of which would have been more than justified by the intelligence presented.

Of course those methods weren’t considered by the Obama Administration; there is no Islamist threat.

With Osama bin Laden dead and core al Qaeda weakened, a new collection of violent Islamist extremist organizations and cells have emerged in the last two to three years. These groups are not all operationally linked to core al Qaeda or in some cases have only weak ties to al Qaeda. This trend is particularly notable in countries such as Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, and Syria that are going through political transition or military conflict as a result of the political upheavals referred to as the “Arab Spring.”

But these groups can’t be a serious danger to the United States because Bin Laden is dead and thus there is no Islamist threat.

The report writes of the Libyan security personnel called the February 17 Brigade who were hired to help guard the compound:

Some U.S. personnel also questioned the Brigade’s loyalty to the Libyan government and their capacity or desire to safeguard American interests. In June 2012, an RSO in Benghazi wrote, “Unfortunately, given the current threat to the diplomatic mission, the militia members not currently on the [four-man team stationed at the facility] have expressed concern with showing active open support for the Americans in Benghazi.” Notably, the contract between the State Department and the February 17 Brigade had expired by the time of the attack.

There has been speculation that the Libyans who were supposed to help guard the compound actually aided the attackers. But the Obama Administration wasn’t worried about the loyalties because there is no Islamist threat. 

In the December 2011 memo approving the Temporary Mission Facility in Benghazi, the Department of State noted the need for corrective security measures for the facility. According to RSO Nordstrom, the Department of State never consulted with him about the security requirements of the facility before the December 2011 action memo was sent to Under Secretary Kennedy for approval. The memo approved by Kennedy indicated that the Department of State would ” rapidly implement a series of corrective security measures as part of the consolidation of the State footprint.” However, the memo lacked details as to the security standards to be followed and the resources required to implement the security measures. The absence of dedicated resources contributed to the constraints under which those in Washington and Benghazi would operate throughout 2012 …Because the Benghazi facility was temporary, no security standards applied to it.

No security standards for a facility housing our ambassador in incendiary east Libya? Why not? There is no Islamist threat.

In March 2012 the Tripoli Embassy had requested five full-time security positions for Benghazi. However, a day after sending this request, Nordstrom was told that Washington had capped the number of agents in Benghazi at three, even though the request for five agents was consistent with the December 2011 action memo approved by Under Secretary Kennedy to extend the duration of the Benghazi facility … Following a bomb attack on a Libyan Army colonel in August, the principal U.S. diplomatic officer in Benghazi wrote that “[g]iven our small size, there is really no distinction between authorized and ordered departure from Benghazi: if we lose one more person, we will be ineffective… we are already at a skeleton crew … In July Embassy officials in Tripoli requested a minimum of three DS agents for Benghazi.

From five down to three? Why? There is no Islamist threat.

Despite the inability of the Libyan government to fulfill its duties to secure the facility, the increasingly dangerous threat assessments, and a particularly vulnerable facility, the Department of State officials did not conclude the facility in Benghazi should be closed or temporarily shut down. That was a grievous mistake.

Why no shut-down? You know why.

And Barack Obama’s refusal to call the attack an act of terrorism as late as September 24 on “The View” when questioned by Joy Behar when the report clearly states:

As early as September 15th, the Annex team that had been in Benghazi during the attack reported there had been no protest … The next day, the President of Libya’s General National Congress, Mohamed Yousef el-Magariaf, also stated on the CBS News show Face the Nation that the attack was planned and involved Al Qaeda elements.

Obama would be the last person in the world to acknowledge Islamic terrorism is still thriving.

The report concludes with this passage, which insinuates that the mantra of “There is no Islamist Threat” is a real concern with this Administration:

One of the key lessons of this Committee’s six-year focus on the threat of violent Islamist extremism is that, in order to understand and counter the threat we face, we must clearly identify that threat. During the Committee’s investigation into the Fort Hood massacre, for example, we found systemic problems with the way the military addressed violent Islamist extremism in its policies and procedures (treating this specific threat within the broader context of “workplace violence”). Similarly, while we welcomed the Administration’s release last year of a national strategy and implementation plan for countering radicalization domestically, we expressed our disappointment in the Administration’s continued refusal to identify violent Islamist extremism as our enemy.

Obama’s denial of the Islamist threat is the foundation of his policies. When viewed through that prism, every action he takes becomes crystal-clear.