Benghazi-gate may have altered history
What very well might be the largest politically-motivated cover-up in our nation's history may be finally exposed.
For nearly eight months, the Obama administration and the complicit liberal media have attempted to sweep the facts about the attack on our U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, under the rug.
Now, thanks to the relentless pursuit of the truth by a few brave eyewitnesses, our country and the victims' families may be on their way to discovering the White House knowingly misled the country about the details of the terrorist attack.
The initial "Benghazi-gate" investigation, having been prompted by Republicans and conservative news organizations, was widely dismissed by the left. Early facts regarding the apparent negligence of the Obama administration in protecting American lives were construed by Democrats as an attempt to denigrate Barack Obama just weeks before the presidential election.
However, as indisputable evidence continues to amass, some Democrats and left-leaning media factions have been forced to glean and report the truth -- if for no other reason than to protect their credibility.
It's ironic that while those who have followed this debacle for months aren't having any major epiphanies from this "heightened" level of reporting, some liberal media outlets are branding their stories as "exclusive reports."
Major news organizations are now confirming the Obama administration worked "much" harder at covering up the details of Benghazi than they did in pursuing the truth. ABC News reports the White House changed their "talking points" numerous times, redacting crucial information.
While I don't propose to dwell on the redundant details of Benghazi, I do want to ask the all-important question.
Why was it so important, in September 2012, for the White House to conceal the truth about Benghazi?
I believe it was to protect the re-election of Barack Hussein Obama.
Hillary Clinton knew if we ever discovered the motivation for the cover-up, it would not only damage Obama, but also her own presidential aspirations; hence, her staged rant before a Senate committee hearing in January.
"Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they'd go kill Americans?" Clinton said. "What difference -- at this point, what difference does it make?"
The truth is it makes all the difference in the world. In fact, this difference, in my opinion, will determine if the president's involvement in Benghazi should be an impeachable offense.
Now, I don't believe anyone in this administration wants people to die. I do, however, believe that President Obama has displayed skewed values and failed leadership throughout his presidency, and his inaction in Benghazi is a prime example.
As the investigation by the House Oversight Committee continues, Americans may learn the cover-up in Benghazi has forever changed the course of history for our nation.
For if the truth of Benghazi had been corroborated, even to this degree, prior to the November election, Barack Obama would likely "not" be the President of the United States.
And in January, we would have inaugurated President Willard Mitt Romney.
Mark Caserta is a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.
The Herald-Dispatch welcomes your comments on this article, but please be civil. Avoid profanity, obscenity, personal attacks, accusations of criminal activity, name-calling or insults to the other posters. Herald-dispatch.com does not control or monitor comments as they are posted, but if you find a comment offensive or uncivil, hover your mouse over the comment and click the X that appears in the upper right of the comment. If you do not want your comment to post to your personal Facebook page, uncheck the box below the comment.