Benghazi: Is it mission impossible?

What makes me, an amateur writer, think I can get across to readers there’s a monumental story out there that’s not getting coverage; a scandal that mainstream media doesn’t want to go near? Unfortunately for this country, there are a lot of people who don’t care to know, but worse, are those who want to know and just aren’t getting the word.

Les Knoll

Les Knoll

Over a year and half ago Islamic extremists attacked our overseas consulate in Benghazi of Libya and killed four Americans, one of them Ambassador Christopher Stevens, but MSM treats it as a non-story.

Fast forward to May, 2014. With numerous congressional House committee investigations and hearings for months on end, there are still more questions than answers to what happened on 9/11/2012, the 11th anniversary of the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil ever.

Should we care that four Americans, serving our country, were killed by Islamic extremists? Should we be concerned that not one terrorist to date has been brought to justice and it’s not as if we don’t know who was involved?

How do you suppose the families of the four who died feel as they still wait for some word from the White House and State Department about what really happened?

It is clear that the attack was not something that happened spontaneously. It was clearly planned by terrorists. However, it is also clear that Obama and then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton misled Americans that an anti Islamic video caused a spontaneous demonstration. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Why were Americans misled? It is also clear that with Obama’s re-election weeks away terrorist groups, particularly al-Qaeda, were supposed to be decimated and on the run. With the capture and death of Osama bin Laden, the president wanted Americans to go to the polls thinking Islamic terrorists were no longer a problem.

Readers, at this point, might ask “Les, why should this be such a big story?” The big story is that the lives of four great Americans took a back seat to Obama and Hillary’s politics! What a huge travesty!

It’s all about a huge cover-up, greater than Watergate, as I see it! Nobody died with the Watergate scandal, yet President Nixon resigned. And, I say it is Obama who is making this the biggest story even though he wants it to go away. If, I ask, “Mr. President, if there’s no cover up, there’s no wrong doing, why don’t you lay it out there for all to see what really is the truth? You have been stonewalling. Congress subpoenas documents and you ignore the subpoenas. Why?”

A smoking gun email was secured recently by a private source called Judicial Watch, an email Congress was unable to secure from the White House. Why is current Secretary of State John Kerry stonewalling? He said at the outset of his new job all documents requested by House committees would be forthcoming. Guess what?

“The smoking gun email Mr. President by your staff member Ben Rhodes, instructed UN Ambassador Susan Rice to go on five TV shows and blame it on a video and not Islamic terrorists. CIA knew from the get go it was a terrorist attack and never ever referred to a video. Why, the lie Mr. President and for many days after?

“Why not come clean about where you were and what you were doing during the eight-hour attack? Where was Hillary? Why the secrecy? Why would you and Hillary be completely incognito for eight hours? Why were military stand-bys told to stand down when there was the possibility of helping the four who ended up dying? Why did Hillary turn a blind eye to the many requests by Ambassador Stevens for more security months prior to the attack?”

How ironic, Democrats are accusing Republicans of using this story for political gain, yet it was Obama and Hillary’s political agenda that started the whole thing. Hopefully, the new select committee of the House, with powers the other committees lacked, can get answers to questions heretofore ignored by the White House and State Department.

I don’t want to sound like a broken record, considering my other writings, but I ask, how in the case of our current president, the death of four great Americans, followed by stonewalling and lies, can this be a non story; however, in the case of Bush 43, the story would be so very big, there probably would be impeachment? Anybody with half a brain, looking at this issue with an open mind, must know Benghazi is a huge story and not just political posturing.

Les Knoll lives in Victoria and Gilbert, Ariz.

  • Chief59

    “how… can this be a non story; however, in the case of Bush 43, the story would be so very big, there probably would be impeachment?”


    January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

    June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al-Qaida attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

    October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of “Bali Bombings.” No fatalities.

    February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

    May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al-Qaida terrorists storm the diplomatic compound killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

    July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

    December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaida terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

    March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name “David Foy.” This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what’s considered American soil.)

    September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting “Allahu akbar” storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

    January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

    March 18, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaida-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

    July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

    September 17, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had beenmarried for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

    All of those incidents happened under GW Bush. Not only was he not impeached, as Mr. Knoll suggests should happen to President Obama, there were no congressional hearings about said attacks. 92 people were killed in the attacks. I sure don’t remember Fox News or Mr. Knoll spouting conspiracy then.

    • Yahooserious

      This guy has no idea, Chris. That this a “political scandal” not a real one.

      How about Bush and Cheny and the late late late (not until it was publicly known) delivery if MRAP’s to Iraq. For the matter how about up-armord vehicles period. I rode around in that country for 5 months with steal plates welded to my doors on a army m915. Not until the story of the Army’s “hill billy armor” went public did they do anything about it. I seen people get seriously f*cked up cause of out old, no protection equipment. Thankfully no one I knew was killed.

      Actually the whole Iraq war period is a scandal. Where’s our answer on why? It’s never been explained why they lied to us and the world.

    • O’Neill Clan

      I suppose because nobody blamed it on a movie.

      • observer

        very true, they went out time and time again and blamed it on a movie, they even put the guy in jail for his movie. They denied increased security after it had been requested and known threats were ignored. Requests to send help were denied when the attacks were happening. I believe these events should be investigated and the people that screwed it up should end up in jail for their actions. They should be held accountable.
        But, of course we know that will not happen because Obama would never do anything wrong now can he….. at least not as far as the lapdog media are concerned. Instead we are stone-walled and told “Move along, nothing to see here”.

        I didn’t buy into all the hype when the man was elected in either election and I do not believe anything he or his administration says. He says one thing and does the exact opposite when it suits his agenda and I think he is doing nothing but destroying this great country. So much for thinking “fundamentally transforming America” could be a good thing……

      • alexander

        Being wrong is worse than being ambivalent, apparently.

        Apparently its better to just not give a crap about dead American service men and women, then to be mislead by faulty intelligence.

        Unless you are a Republican being mislead by faulty intelligence, at which point it is totally not your fault at all and isn’t a big deal.

        Makes sense to me, Mission Accomplished!

        • O’Neill Clan

          Don’t forget Al Qaeda is decimated and Bin Laden is dead…….mission accomplished!

    • A_citizen_patriot

      Well chief one problem with what you quoted is the vast majority of those killed were not Americans.

      • Achoo son of a Sneeze

        Out of the 92 killed were more than 4 of them Americans? Do those Americans don’t matter, since the vast majority killed weren’t is that what your saying? Nice try to invalidate Chief”s claim but it doesn’t hold water.

        • A_citizen_patriot

          No, there were some Americans killed and their deaths should be investigated. But what chief is trying to show is how many were killed under bush. Most of those were not Americans. I never said that the Americans killed don’t matter. But keep trying to twist my words around.

      • alexander

        Well, if the ‘vast majority’ were not Americans, no big deal!

        You saying as an aside that “they should be investigated’ is a far cry from your attitude regarding Benghazi.

        Maybe you should just get used to it? Hmm?

      • Chief59

        The vast majority weren’t Americans, but a lot more than four were killed. In fact, it’s closer to a dozen. Not a scandal though, I guess.

  • Chief59

    One more thing, Mr. Knoll…

    “How do you suppose the families of the four who died feel as they still wait for some word from the White House and State Department about what really happened?”

    Several family members have actually tried to dissuade Congress from having these pointless hearings. They are tired of having to relive the pain of their family members deaths. They know there is no conspiracy. To me, that sounds like the people calling for these witch hunts are the ones hurting the families who lost loved ones.

    • Chief69

      “Several family members” –
      U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith, and security officers Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were all killed during the attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya on Sept. 11, 2012.
      In a letter hand-delivered to Boehner, Smith’s mother, Pat Smith, and uncle, Michael Ingmire, as well as Woods’ father, Charles Woods, pressed Boehner to form a select committee to investigate the Benghazi scandal.


    Believe me Les no democrat voted for Obama because we thought the al-Qaeda were all dead . You keep saying everything is clear on what happen, we are going into our 9 th witch hunt , the first 8 showed nothing is clear , like you are saying . Of coarse that’s just your personal opinion , the American public voted Obama in twice so we will go with that opinion over yours . Go put on your big boy pants and move on ,the elections are over your man lost twice get over it>

  • Brian Derrick

    Mr. Knoll states “It is also clear that with Obama’s re-election weeks away terrorist groups, particularly al-Qaeda, were supposed to be decimated and on the run. With the capture and death of Osama bin Laden, the president wanted Americans to go to the polls thinking Islamic terrorists were no longer a problem.”

    Do you really believe that when the POTUS said “al Qaeda was on the run” and “The core of al Qaeda is decimated” that’s the same thing as saying “terrorists were no longer a problem” (you quote). Really??

    The Democratic National Convention had just ended, and the message
    was: Obama had killed Osama bin Laden and terrorism “was on the run,”
    was “decimated.” The assumption made by many on the right is that a
    ‘cover up’ was instituted because Benghazi was proof that this wasn’t true, that “Obama lied,” and the WH went into spin mode.

    But that narrative doesn’t fit at all with what the POTUS had said earlier about al Qaeda. On Sept. 20, speaking at the University of Miami, Obama said, “We’ve decimated al Qaeda’s top leadership in the border regions around Pakistan… he continued ” … but in Yemen, in Libya, in other of these
    places – increasingly in places like Syria, what you see is these
    elements that don’t have the same capacity that a bin Laden or core al
    Qaeda had, but can still cause a lot of damage, and we’ve got to make
    sure that we remain vigilant and are focused on preventing them from
    doing us any harm.”

    This is hardly a statement claiming Al Qaeda “was no longer a threat” and, (as you say) “terrorists were no longer a problem.” In fact, as you see above, Obama presaged smaller scale attacks exactly like Benghazi! Having said this, what did Obama need to cover up?


    What does that leave Republicans in terms of a Benghazi “cover up”?


  • Brian Derrick

    By the way, you may want to look up the definition of “decimate.” I do not think that word means what you think it means:

    dec·i·mate ˈdesəˌmāt/ verb
    decimate; 3rd person present: decimates; past tense: decimated; past
    participle: decimated; gerund or present participle: decimating

    1. kill, destroy, or remove a large percentage or part of.
    “the project would decimate the fragile wetland wilderness”
    drastically reduce the strength or effectiveness of (something).
    “plant viruses that can decimate yields”

    2. historical. kill one in every ten of (a group of soldiers or others) as a punishment for the whole group.

  • CleanCut

    You can train a Republican to repeat anything, no matter how ridiculous it is.

    • O’Neill Clan

      Also with a Democrat…it was caused by a movie, it was caused by a movie, it was caused by a movie………shut down youtube.

      • Jay Carney

        We want to focus on creating jobs and getting Americans back to work…we want to focus on creating jobs and getting Americans back to work…we want to focus on…