... because the White House sure wants you to and the press corps has dutifully obliged this wish.
Michael Walsh writes:
More than two months after an Islamist attack on the American consulate in Benghazi that left four Americans dead, including US Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, we still don’t know what really happened that night — and, thanks to a secretive White House and an incurious Washington press corps, we probably never will. Not officially, that is.
But there’s no real mystery about it. From the evidence that’s emerged in dribs and drabs since the Sept. 11 calamity, it’s clear that Ansar al-Sharia, a Libyan al Qaeda-affiliated group coordinating with its allies elsewhere in the Muslim world, used the cover of riots in Cairo to launch a preplanned assault on our lightly guarded Benghazi consulate and a CIA safe house that may have been doubling as a secret prison.
That much was clear to our intelligence community almost immediately — and, in any case, should have been the working hypothesis from the jump.
The Arab Spring, falsely painted by a soft-headed US media as a purely pro-democracy movement, has in fact prompted seizure of power by Islamists. Benghazi, an armed hotbed of radicalism, was a fine target of opportunity for a strike at the Great Satan.
What’s also heart-rendingly clear is that our diplomats and security personnel understood the danger they were in, repeatedly requested more resources — and were left to die, as US military and intelligence assets monitored their deaths in real time, lacking the orders to protect them.
Benghazi was a first-class military and moral disgrace, and one that the Democrats paid absolutely no price for in the recent election.
But the questions won’t go away. Who gave the order to stand down as the consulate was under fire? Who came up with the cockamamie story — so eagerly peddled by UN Ambassador Susan Rice and other administration spokespersons right after the event — that the sacking and looting were in response to an obscure video that lampooned the origins of Islam and had been posted on You Tube for months?
And why did President Obama cling to such a risible explanation, and then (with a timely assist from Candy Crowley in the second presidential debate) turn on a dime and claim he knew the assault was terrorism all along?
There is also credible evidence that we were running guns to the Libyan rebels through the Benghazi consulate as part of our leading from behind strategy to avoid direct U.S. troop involvement.
Benghazi, at the eastern end of the country and away from the control of Tripoli in the west was and remains a jihadist hot bed. Making Benghazi the defacto rebel HQ then while running guns and weapons to these rebels, card-carrying members of Al-Quaeda or not, combined with the power vacuum created by the demise of Gadaffi, made the resulting sacking of our consulate and the murder of 4 Americans an entirely predictable outcome. Entirely predictable.
Let us recall the political class/media-complex wanted Bush impeached over a series of distasteful naked pyramid photos at Abu-Ghraib. 4 dead Americans, a Laurel and Hardy cover-up and zero sense of outrage from the press for an incident that for all intents and purposes would've cost a Republican president his re-election bid.