Why Benghazi?

Charlie Daniels
By Charlie Daniels | July 6, 2014 | 2:56 PM EDT

Every day for well over a year I have tweeted about the slaughter of Ambassador Chris Stevens, U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith and two CIA security contractors and former Navy SEALs, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, by Islamic fanatics in Benghazi, Libya.

Some people don't like my constant barraging of President Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for their blatant mishandling of the incident, the downright silliness of the anti-Islam Video virtually nobody had seen, the refusal to even attempt to send in a rescue team and Obama's calloused retreat to his bed to rest up for a campaign trip to Las Vegas.

While Hillary and Barack did whatever they were doing that fateful evening, Ambassador Stevens was being tortured, raped, cattle prodded and beaten for seven hours by a bunch of animals that Hillary seems to think just happened to be out for a walk one night and "decided they'd go kill some Americans."

The administration claims there were no assets in the area that could have arrived in time to rescue four trapped Americans, a dubious claim at best which is disputed by some experienced military people.

Actually that premise doesn't hold much water, anyway, because how could Obama/Clinton have known how long the siege would last?

Why weren't teams dispatched immediately upon finding out that the diplomatic compounds were under fire?

Why were the teams who were loaded up and ready to drive to Benghazi from the embassy in Tripoli told to stand down and return to the embassy?

Who gave the stand-down order to the assets that had a chance of getting to Benghazi on time?

They say there was no stand-down order, but there has to be a protocol for an event like Benghazi, protocols that would automatically go into effect. Who pulled them back?

And, even if such protocols didn't exist, the very act of doing absolutely nothing is certainly tantamount to a stand-down order.

My detractors point out that several embassies were attacked and a lot of Americans killed under George W. Bush and other presidents, but this is the first time that a president totally ignored a desperate plea for help and a Secretary of State ever allowed an American ambassador to go into a hot spot with only one security man.

What makes Benghazi so different from all the others to me?

Simple, I think it was the day everyone serving in the military, foreign service, clandestine services and American business people operating abroad were betrayed. The code of "No man left behind" was dishonored and a Commander in Chief just threw his hands in the air, pronounced the situation impossible and went to bed.

It's the first time an administration tried to blame the death of people in service to this nation on some obscure video and stood over their coffins, in the presence of their families and proliferated the lie, knowing it was untrue.

Wouldn't a show of force, even one that arrived too late to save the Americans, at least have shown that America will have a deadly response to any and all threats to the lives of our citizens wherever they are serving?

And, what about catching the people who attacked the embassy? So far, only one man has been taken into custody and it took over a year to catch him, even though he was doing media interviews like some kind of a celebrity.

So what makes Benghazi a special case to me is that a president and Secretary of State violated the trust of the people in their charge and sat on their hands - while four Americans died horrible deaths - then lied about the cause and refused to take responsibility for their actions.

Or, maybe I should say inactions.

What do you think?

Pray for our troops and the peace of Jerusalem

God Bless America

Charlie Daniels