By Jim Kouri
Close to three weeks after the deadly and destructive terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, a team of FBI investigators finally had boots of the ground in order to examine the crime scene, a Law Enforcement Examiner source said on Friday. But several forensics experts and former crime scene investigators called this latest display from the Obama administration a “dog and pony show” for consumption by U.S. voters.
The forensic team had hoped to gather information, investigative aids, and evidence on the terrorist attack that burned-down U.S. diplomatic compound and killed four Americans including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens.
“The FBI continues to coordinate with the U.S. Departments of State, Justice, and Defense, as well as the Libyan government, and other agencies in furtherance of the investigation into the deaths of Ambassador Stevens, Glen Doherty, Sean Smith, and Tyrone Woods,” the FBI said in a statement. “As this is an ongoing investigation, we have no further information to provide.”
“I believe it would be safe to assume that if the FBI team did find anything at the crime scene somehow it would have been leaked to the news media by someone in the Obama administration, an administration that has more leaks than the Somali navy,” said former police detective and crime scene investigator Manny Cardoza.
“Did anyone believe that weeks after an terrorist attack occurred a crime scene would yield anything of value after the Libyans trampled all over the location of the attack? It’s safe to assume we are dealing with a cold case or a situation in which some low-level Islamists will be blamed and prosecuted by the Libyan government,” said Cardoza. “It’s a cold case because the Obama minions showed weakness and didn’t pressure the Libyans and insist that FBI agents — with U.S. Navy SEALs guarding the agents — visit the crime scene unencumbered forthwith.”
Several Republican lawmakers expressed their frustration with the obvious slow response to the attack, with some claiming that Secretary Hillary Clinton and her State Department are waiting until after the presidential election to conclude the investigation and announce its results. Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) and Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA), on Wednesday renewed their demand for documents relating to the attack after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declined to hand over the cables they initially requested.
Prior to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, Ambassador Chris Stevens’ request for additional security officials was turned down by the Obama administration in order to project a friendly atmosphere to the distrusting Islamic population, an anonymous security official in Washington, D.C., informed the Law Enforcement Examiner on Wednesday.
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee leaders on Tuesday had sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asking why requests for more protection were denied to the U.S. mission in Libya by Washington officials prior to the violent and deadly terrorist attack that killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. The denials came after repeated attacks and security threats to U.S. personnel, according to Congressmen Darrell Issa (R-CA), the committee chairman, and Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) the subcommittee chairman.
“While the written requests were unemotional and respectful, the verbal requests were pleas from American foreign service personnel who were terrified of their surroundings and their vulnerability in a turbulent environment,” said the Law Enforcement Examiner source.
“In the immediate aftermath of the attack, and then for several days, administration officials contended that the attack on the consulate was a spontaneous reaction to a crude anti-Islamic movie trailer posted to YouTube. The New York Times, Reuters, and Fox News have in the last few days published stories, based on what these news organizations said were reliable sources, that “within hours” of the attack, U.S. intelligence agencies submitted dozens of reports to high officials suggesting that an al Qaeda-affiliated Libyan militia was behind the attack,” according to Homeland Security Newswire.
Rep. Peter King (R-NY) believes Obama had political reasons for avoiding calling the Benghazi attack terrorism. “What I believe is that President [Obama] is so fixated on convincing the American people that he has defeated al-Qaeda and that al-Qaeda is no longer a real threat. By admitting this was a terrorist attack, Obama’s image would be looked upon as one of defeat against al-Qaeda,” King says.
“I believe that this was such a failure of foreign policy message and leadership, such a misstatement of facts as were known at the time and for [Ambassador Susan Rice] to go on all of those shows and to in effect be our spokesman for the world and be misinforming the American people and our allies and countries around the world, to me somebody has to pay the price for this… to rule out terrorism, to say it was not terrorism at that time was a — to me, a terrible mistake to make whether it was done intentionally or unintentionally and to show the significance of that, I believe [UN Ambassador Susan Rice] should resign, yes,” King said.