Liberal Media Claims Other Embassy Attacks No Different Than Benghazi; They’re Wrong

In an article posted on July 22, the liberal outlet Vox published an article titled “In 1998, terrorists attacked two US embassies. No one blamed the secretary of state.”

The terrorist attack that killed four Americans, including our Ambassador to Libya, is allegedly no different than other attacks that have been carried out on American embassies in years past.

Here’s how the article starts:

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before:

Radical Islamic terrorists attack a US embassy in a known terrorist hotspot, killing several Americans. Military reinforcements in the immediate aftermath of the attack are slow to arrive on the scene.

A subsequent inquiry finds that security at the embassy before the attack was woefully inadequate, and that repeated requests from top embassy personnel for more resources and better security went unheeded by the State Department leadership in Washington. The seriousness of the terrorist threat was also downplayed in Washington, despite repeated warnings from intelligence officials and Embassy staff that the risk was real.

Benghazi, right?

Wrong. That’s a description of one of the two bombings of US embassies in East Africa that occurred in 1998, which together killed over 220 people, including 12 Americans, and injured over 4,000 others.

The artile then goes on to discuss similarities between the attacks, and justifies why Hillary Clinton should not be at fault for what happened, because the Secretary of State in 1998 was not at fault.

The attack in Dar es Salaam killed 11, and injured another 85. The attack in Nairobi killed many more, 230 total dead and over 5,000 injured. At first glance, there are similarities between these 1998 attacks and the 2012 attack.

But, the writer at Vox forgot to mention important background information about the Benghazi attack.

Hillary Clinton’s State Department was the entity that enabled the attack to happen.

That’s right, the U.S. State Department provided the tools needed to jihadists in Libya, without Congressional authorization, and in violation of United Nations’ arms proliferation treaties.

The State Department initially approved a weapons shipment from a California company to Libyans seeking to oust Moammar Gadhafi in 2011 even though a United Nations arms ban was in place, according to memos recovered from the burned-out compound in Benghazi.

he documents, obtained by The Washington Times, show U.S. diplomats at the Benghazi compound were keeping track of several potential U.S.-sanctioned shipments to allies, one or more of which were destined for the Transitional National Council, the Libyan movement that was seeking to oust Gadhafi and form a new government.

Reuters reported in 2011 that President Obama signed a special presidential directive that authorized covert U.S. action to destabilize Gadhafi and stand up a new regime, up to and including facilitating weapons transfers if it was deemed in the U.S. interest.

The New York Times, quoting anonymous officials, reported a year later that the Obama administration gave its secret blessing to some weapons shipments to Libyan rebels routed through Qatar during the height of the country’s revolution.

Fox News this summer quoted a former CIA official as providing testimony in a court case that the U.S. almost certainly ran a covert weapons operation to help arm the Libyan rebels.

Did the Secretary of State provide bomb-making material to the terrorists in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam? Not as far as we know in 2016. But Hillary Clinton’s State Department did provide weapons to the terrorists in Libya that carried out this attack.

With the “good” motives of deposing Libyan dictator Gadhafi, the region was destabilized and became a “jihadist wonderland” in the words of Senator Rand Paul. When he asked about proliferation of arms into Libya, and specifically through Benghazi and on to Turkey and Syria, she deflected. He suspected that she was aware of this despite her denials.

“I find it hard to believe Hillary Clinton didn’t know,” he said. “In fact she was the biggest cheerleader for redistributing these arms to Syrian rebels.”

And it turns out that Rand Paul was 100% correct, as the Washington Times reported>

…Mrs. Clinton privately endorsed inside the State Department the idea of using arms merchants to help the Libyans. “Fyi. The idea of using private security experts to arm the opposition should be considered,” Mrs. Clinton wrote in an email to her most senior aides.

This fact is what separates the Benghazi attack from other embassy attacks. When the State Department uses a diplomatic facility for weapons trafficking, and arms rebels who are not vetted to ensure that they are not jihadists, this is the only logical result.

It’s not mere partisan politicking, it’s intellectually honest assessment of a failed foreign policy.

And Hillary has the audacity to talk about “getting ‘weapons of war’ off our streets.”

If you haven’t checked out and liked our Facebook page, please go here and do so.

Leave a comment...