---- Ready to combat Facebook's censorship? Click here to join the Grassfire Social network now! ----
On Thursday, Liberty News published an in-depth 3,700 word report on the Benghazi attack and what we believe to be a full-blown disinformation/distraction campaign being aggressively waged by elements of the U.S. government. We didn’t hold back. We posed the tough questions, with background and context for the questions, exactly as we’ve been asking them around the office.
Among the many lines of questioning we’re pursuing, there is a single, simple one that brings the Obama Administration’s entire Benghazi narrative crashing down. This critical question hasn’t been answered by those in positions of leadership, which leads to many more serious issues of trust and accountability. This key question is:
Now that we know we could have gotten help to the Benghazi compound in time to defend against the military-style attack and possibly save the lives of four Americans, why did our forces stand down?
Think about that for a moment. Depending on the answer(s), the implications are profound and far-reaching. The media is still fumbling around about the lack of timely response.
Additionally, most in the media still refer to the Benghazi compound as a “consulate”, implying it was a diplomatic facility instead of what it really was – a CIA outpost given camouflage and cover by the State Department. The media is infatuated with the what, but doesn’t seem to care about the why of this situation. You might say they’re all worked up about small brushfires (that the CIA or other government entities may have intentionally set) and don’t see that the barn is burning down.
If our guys on the ground in the region knew we could, in a timely manner, move military assets into Benghazi and counter the attackers’ punch, why were they told not to? What could possibly be the justification for that decision – to essentially let the Americans die? And did President Obama really issue a “stand down” order?
Because this question persists, the following questions must also be asked…and answered:
- Why do media outlets continue to buy into and report the convenient (mis-)labeling and refer to the “Special Mission Benghazi Compound” as a “consulate”?
- Where are the so-called “terrorist” attackers/armed militants/murderers? Have we stopped looking for them? Did we let them slip away into anonymity?
- Who and where are the rest of the survivors of the attack and those evacuated after?
- Why did the attackers know they should target the Special Mission Benghazi Compound, and what was their true intention, their true target – what or who did they really want?
- Why is there now so little mainstream discussion of the role the CIA played in the facilities that were attacked?
- Why were 23 of the 30 American officials evacuated from Benghazi active within the CIA? Only 7 of the 30 worked for the State Department? Yet the media continue to characterize the Benghazi facility as a State Department installation?
- Was the CIA Annex a facility used in a secret gun-running operation – a covert weapons transfer – and was Ambassador Chris Stevens involved?
- Was the CIA Annex used to facilitate the flow of arms to (Muslim Brotherhood) insurgents fighting in Syria and quite possibly elsewhere in the Middle East?
- Why are there two versions of the ARB (Accountability Review Board) Report? One is unclassified for public view, the other is highly classified; and while Congress can view it, they are legally forbidden to discuss it in public hearings or in news interviews.
Additionally, most in the media continue to refer to the attack as an “act of terror” (and in some few cases, still a protest gone awry). This accepted “terror” assessment comes from the CIA’s original talking points as well as recent testimony before Congress.
However, the Benghazi attack bears few, if any, signs of being perpetrated by terrorists, per se. An act of terror usually occurs in a crowded hotel or a cafe. A train station or a sporting event. Acts of terror are attacks performed with the purpose of inspiring terror, almost always among a non-military, defenseless civilian population.
What happened in Benghazi was no simple, random act of terror or spontaneous street protest. It was a coordinated, planned, well armed militaristic assault by an organized group with a specific target. It was a military attack on a U.S. facility defended, at least in part, by trained, armed ex-military CIA operatives.
So why in the world do so many in the media – conservative media included – continue to call the Benghazi attack “terrorism”?
On Breitbart.com, John Nolte, generally a crack investigative reporter, in a piece written on 5.10.13, concludes: “…this was a terror attack”.
On Townhall.com, Katie Pavlich, also usually a relentless reporter of truth, writes in a 5.10.13 article: “The CIA gave the White House and the State Department accurate and factual information about al Qaeda and terrorist threats in Benghazi.”
Given all the evidence, we believe otherwise. We believe the Special Mission Benghazi Compound – a CIA outpost manned by ex-military operatives for the spy agency, was the predetermined target of a military strike, possibly one disguised as a terrorist attack.
And if that “terrorist attack” assumption is false, what else is also a distraction, a diversion, or an outright lie?
As the great nation that we still are, America must not accept a compliant/complicit/corrupt media’s off-target, force-fed narrative. We must not accept a false premise based on a web of lies intended to cover possibly illicit government actions. We must not be lulled into complacency by distracting, irrelevant questions with no answers or answers that divert us from essential truth about this Administration. We’re better than to fall for this manipulative and dangerous game. We need to take a stand and insist on hard-nosed investigation and reporting until we get to the truth – THE REAL TRUTH.
LibertyNEWS.com joined a handful of other media outlets yesterday in asking unpopular questions most Obama-supporting media won’t touch or ridicule us for. Yes, we took a few jabs. Overall, though, the support for our move was positive, encouraging and informed. Our Network will not back down and will not quit asking probing questions that challenge the conventional wisdom and the convenient narratives.
In the coming days and weeks we’re going to roll out a series of investigative stories on Benghazi that revolve around the real demanding questions that exist today, not those concocted or regurgitated by the “shamestream” media and their allies in government. Please be sure you’re subscribed to LibertyNEWS Report and watch for updates.
Ask questions. Challenge and investigate the answers you’re given. Seek the truth and reject the lies.