John R. Houk

© October 25, 2012

The murder of Ambassador Stevens and three other American officials in Benghazi, Libya is indeed beginning to sound like a reprehensible scandal of lies, deceit and abandonment to terrorism that we can and should call Benghazigate.

It seems like every day snippets of information are released revealing the true picture of what happened in Benghazi. It has been revealed that the State Department knew within two hours the attack was planned and organized by terrorists AND that they knew who the terrorists were - Ansar al-Sharia which is an al Qaeda connected Islamic Terrorist group.

So here is the picture: the State Department and White House knew this was a terrorist attack yet the White House, Secretary of State Clinton and U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice all laid the blame for the deaths of Americans in Benghazi to a badly made movie trailer entitled “Innocence of Muslims”. If you had seen this trailer you would understand this movie had quality of garage production mocking Mohammed. Would Muslims be offended? Absolutely! Would Muslims across the Islamic world spontaneously riot on the anniversary of 9/11 attacking American Embassies because of a movie trailer of dubious quality that had been out for months? NO! Spontaneity indicates no planning.

Fox News Video: When will We Know the Truth about Benghazi Attack?

The reality is there was nothing spontaneous about any of the riot attacks on American Embassies in the Islamic world. They were all organized by Islamic Terrorists or purist Islamic organizations (aka Radical Islam or Islamism) to coordinate with the Islamic attack on American soil on 9/11. In Libya’s case the riot was incited as a ruse to a pre-planned attack on the Benghazi Consulate with the intention to kill the inhabitants. The only thing I wonder about is if the Ansar al-Sharia terrorists knew that Ambassador Chris Stevens was there on that day. I wonder this because it has been proven that Ambassador Stevens had asked for more security because of the suspicion of an imminent terrorist attack.

The response to the request was to ignore it. That means the State Department ignored the threat or was following Obama guidelines to beef up a military presence at the Libyan Embassy and Consulate. Why would such a request be ignored by the Obama Administration? My guess is that at the time it was more of a priority to be non-aggressive to the Muslim world than it was to protect Americans on diplomatic soil considered American because maintaining a politically correct image to anti-war Leftist-Democratic Party constituents in an election year was more important.

The attitude of trying to paint Romney a warmonger by Obama in the last debate brings me to this conclusion. If Romney would have gone after Obama’s failure at Benghazigate President Obama was obviously prepared to paint a picture that he was the man of international peace and that Romney would be a warmonger President if elected. I am certain it would yet another blame Bush moment. Obama would deceitfully paint the picture Bush started unnecessary wars and perpetuated them into long years, then Obama would come and deliver America from a decade’s long war began by Bush Republicans. Obama would accuse Romney of perpetuating the Bush legacy of war.

As if it was wrong for President Bush go after the foreigners that attacked Americans on American soil, right? AGAIN wrong! America should seek to destroy Islamic terrorists globally that might be a threat to Americans at home or Americans travelling abroad. To do anything else is just idiotic appeasement. The foreign policy of appeasement is just a projection of weakness that incites violence against the appeasers.

How wise a man is Mitt Romney? Wise enough to know that Obama is a master manipulating deceiver! Obama prepared for the last debate to confront his Benghazigate lies by deflecting that Romney was a warmonger. Romney was ready and thus did allow the deceiver-President to manipulate Romney’s image.

JRH 10/25/12