Benghazi

Distractions have been put out by the press to hide the administration's response to Benghazi.  One possible reason for the Benghazi cover up is the ultimate goal behind why Benghazi was allowed to burn.  I believe the administration's reaction to the Benghazi attacks was planned to support federal control of the internet.

The White House blamed an anti-Islamic video that appeared on YouTube for spontaneous protests against the U.S. consulate.  The administration claims the protests got out of hand and led to the sacking of our consulate in Libya (YahooNews).  This seems highly unlikely.  The biggest problem is the timeline. 

The video at the center of this excuse was produced months before the Benghazi incident and was barely seen (CNN).  It wasn't as if this was a popular well known video that the entire world was enraged over.  What was even more suspicious was the apology issued for the video from the American embassy in Egypt before any barrage began (Twitchy.com).  Why would the State department apologize for an old movie that no one saw before any outrage over it even started?  It's likely the White House knew an attack was imminent and let it happen, so they could tie it to the video.

In fact, it has been proven that the administration did have knowledge of a possible assault on the consulate.  Warnings were expressed months before that more security was needed (TheHill.com), and these requests were denied (ABCNews).  In addition, the force led to protect the consulate wasn't American, and the area itself was not fully secured (MotherJones.com).  It also soon became clear that the militants  planned this offensive (NYTimes), making this notion of an "all-of-a-sudden" uprising look foolish.  Plus, during the attacks, pleas for help from the consulate were ignored, and the military was told not to assist (InvestigativeProject.org).  So why was this situation allowed to occur?  Why not fully protect our American representatives overseas and prevent something that was easy to predict?  Why not help when the assault was underway and let the situation play out to its obvious conclusion?

To me, the answer is easy.  The Democrats have something to gain from the murder of four Americans: internet oversight.

The administration allowed a U.S. border agent and several hundred Mexicans to die in Fast and Furious in support of their anti-Second Amendment stance.  Is it not possible then to imagine they would use the death of four Americans to push for government oversight of the web, the last truly unhindered bastion of free speech?  The Democrats lament that their monopoly on the media has ended and that the new media is viable competition (NewsBusters.org).  Hence, they have to find a way to garner public support for federal internet controls.  They would argue that it would help to prevent horrible occurrences like Benghazi from ever happening again.  Remember that it was Rahm Emanuel, an Obama cabinet official, who said never let a good crisis go to waste, for it allows you to do things you would not otherwise be able to do. (NationalReview).  If they weren't trying to go after the internet, the White House could have blamed Benghazi on something that was more feasible, like Pastor Terry Jones, who has burned Korans and is offensive in his outspokenness against the White House (TheBlaze.com).  But that wouldn't further any of the left's goals.  By using a YouTube video, the government can make the case for regulations that "ensure" things like Benghazi never happen again.

Never underestimate the lengths to which the left will go.  The only thing they care about are their ends, and any means to reach those ends are acceptable.