Benghazi: The reason behind the reason

Previously we covered my four theories as to why there would possible be a coverup in Benghazi.  They were gross incompetence, intentional sacrifice, covert operation gone wrong, and hiding those behind the terrorist attack.  I maintain that it has to be one of those four reasons, but what about the reason behind the reason?  Why is it so important to make sure America doesn't get a black eye in this case (especially since Obama has no problem apologizing for anything and everything he can to the international community)?

I go with the theory of who stands to benefit the most.  Find out who they are trying to protect and you'll have your reason.  So let's rewind a bit.  After the Benghazi attacks, it took weeks for the Obama administration to clearly confirm that it was a terrorist attack, and even longer to admit the "Innocence of Muslims" Youtube video wasn't involved.  The fact that it wasn't immediately labeled a terrorist operation, as well as this dubious assertion that a Youtube video sparked it, is all the evidence I need to confirm a coverup.  A protest over a Youtube video, even if it turns extremely violent, doesn't suddenly conjour up RPGs, mortars and artillery which were confirmed as part of the attacks very early on.

When whistleblowers and family members of those slain in Benghazi started to speak up, they were silenced.  They report they have been silenced by senior administration officials who have not yet been identified.  The fact that they all report the same treatment confirms this as a tactic being used to defend the administration from this scandal.  Family members have asked for answers and gotten none.  Whistleblowers have sought permission from the government to divulge classified information to attorneys representing their interests in this fight.  Yet, when Obama himself is asked about this, he just tells us he is not aware of anybody being supressed from speaking about Benghazi.  In other words: Obama, I just told you this is happening, but you told me it is not.  These are not the droids you're looking for.  Nothing to see here.  Move along.

Back to the reason behind the reason.  It was probably two-fold.  Win the 2012 election, and protect Hillary Clinton.  If Mitt Romney knew everything we know today during his campaign, he could have absolutely hammered Obama in the debates and the overall campaign on this issue.  However, Obama was able to hide behind the guise of an ongoing investigation and the facts which were hidden at that time, so Romney couldn't risk taking him on so directly on this issue.  Obama wins; mission accomplished.  What about Hillary?  I think she is the bigger reason now that Obama has secured his second term as President.

The Democrats need Hillary.  She is currently considered the frontrunner to take the Democratic nomination for the Presidency in 2016.  Obama is President for another four years. Democrats have locked up the Presidency for another four years.  He is old news.  Now they must ensure another 4 or 8 years on the throne with Hillary.  She has been groomed for this position for 20 years, and after having the rug pulled out from under her by Obama in 2008, it is her time to shine.  Plus, they have nobody else lined up if she fails.  Her fingerprints are all over this, and they need to be scrubbed.

It is apparent that not only did Hillary Clinton refuse to increase security at this embassy, but she refused immediate reaction to support them during the attack.  Her signature is on the denials requesting more security.  Her defenders will say this was an autopen used on all cables going out, and that she never saw these requests.  I'm sorry, but if your name is on it then you own it.  If you empowered someone to sign your name on your behalf, then you trusted them enough to stand by their decisions, and you are not allowed to back away when they do something wrong.  If I give someone power of attorney over my life and they completely screw things up, I have nobody to blame but myself.  Of course, that is assuming that she really never heard about these requests.  She also denied ever refusing help to the embassy during the attack.  This is in direct conflict with those on the ground in Benghazi who say they requested help during the attack.  There were troops 3 hours away in Tripoli ready to go.  For some reason nothing was done.  Either Hillary Clinton denied these actions (as one whistleblower would have you believe), or someone in the chain of command denied them on her behalf.  Again, this still falls on you Mrs. Clinton.  You were in charge when it happened.  You own this.  And if someone made these decisions on your behalf, then they should be exposed and held accountable for the deaths of these four Americans.

It is also apparent that Hillary Clinton lied under oath during the Senate hearings back in January.  I watced her 14 minutes of testimony, and it is chilling to hear her side of the story compared to what we now know.  She claims no support was ever denied for Benghazi, that she acted quickly to respond to this crisis, no delays in decision making, and no problems coordinating between agencies.  This is the exact opposite of what we are hearing from those on the ground in Benghazi.  If these whistleblowers are telling the truth, then Hillary Clinton should be held accountable and charged with perjury, impeding a federal investigation, and suppressing freedom of speech of those whistleblowers.

She also deflected the criticism over the claims that the Youtube video spurred on protests which caused this attack by saying, under oath, "What difference at this point does it make?".  So these aren't the droids I'm looking for.  Move along.  Nothing to see here.  This is a five alarm fire breaking out in a crowded neighborhood, and the entire Obama administration standing the way of the firetrucks trying to get to the scene and saying "Fire? What fire?"  The difference it makes is that Clinton personally tied these attacks to the YouTube video in the public, while all intelligence and evidence indicated this was a coordinated terrorist attack, and we wan't to know why.

Monday, Mike Huckabee, on his own radio show, said he didn't see how Obama could possibly fulfill his entire second term when all is said and done when this Benghazi scandal.  He predicted Obama will either resign, or be removed from office by impeachment.  If Obama was privy to any of the goings on which the whistleblowers say is true, then he directly failed in his Presidential duties to protect this country and its citizens.  Combine that with the fact that both Republicans and Democrats are starting to ask the same questions about this scandal, and it could be the beginning of the end of his Presidency.  Here is my question: Do Democrats need Hillary Clinton running in 2016 more than they need Obama now?  If this continues to escalate, and it comes down to one or the other, who will take the fall?  If Hillary Clinton takes the fall for this whole thing, then in 2016 Obama will be gone and Hillary is done.  I think they could end up sacrificing Obama's second term to protect Hillary.  Let Biden play President for a few years; at least it is still a Democrat on the throne.  Then your golden girl Hillary Clinton can run as the clear favorite in the 2016 election.  Everyone else in this administration can be led to the guillotine so long as Hillary Clinton (and another four years of Democratic Presidency) is protected.  That is the reason behind the reason.