As analysts widely suspected prior to its release, the official report by the U.S. government’s Accountability Review Board about the attack on the U.S. compound in the Libyan city of Benghazi ignored the most explosive “BeghaziGate” scandals: the Obama administration’s lawless arming of jihadists in Libya and Syria, as well as the blatant falsehoods parroted by White House officials for days after the killing of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Instead, the “investigation,” discussed by the State Department at a hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today, focused on the obvious fact that security was inadequate, and predictably, demanded more taxpayer money for the Department of State.
Numerous experts, officials, and even lawmakers have long suggested that the Obama administration was engaged in a ham-handed cover up surrounding the deadly attack in Benghazi since the news first broke. Unsurprisingly, however, the unclassified version of the congressionally mandated, State Department-run investigation — despite some relatively unimportant details about the event itself — offers few clues about the real scandals that continue to swirl around the president and his lawless activities throughout Libya and the broader region.
Among the most glaring omissions in the report were the real questions that were not even raised, let alone addressed:
• What was the Obama administration’s full role in helping violent Jihadists, self-styled al Qaeda terrorists, and Western-backed “revolutionaries” take over Libya in the first place?
• Did that half-baked scheme to arm Jihadist leaders, who as the report acknowledges had previously fought U.S. troops in Iraq, contribute to the attack, as countless experts and officials have suggested?
• What was actually going on at the compound in Benghazi, which as the report states, was never a “consulate” despite establishment media claims?
• Was Ambassador Stevens recruiting and arming Jihadists and terrorists to wage war on the Syrian regime after what Obama called the “success” in Libya, as a growing body of credible evidence suggests?
• Why did the administration claim for so long that the attack was just a “protest” over a YouTube video gone awry, even when it knew definitively that was not the case?
• Was the lack of security at the compound a political ploy to conceal the extent of the lawlessness and utter chaos left in the wake of Obama’s unconstitutional “regime change” war on Libya, as even members of Congress have alleged?