Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Hillary Clinton's Dilemma On Benghazi - Protect The Obama Administration or Herself
As Rep. Darrel Issa's House Oversight Committee began its investigation of the shameful events in Benghazi and what appears to be a clumsy attempt at an Obama Administration cover up, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is in the hot seat.
It's pretty obvious by now that virtually everything the Obama Administration told the American people after the deadly attacks was a lie.The above ad from the Heritage Foundation ad above does a pretty good job of laying out the timeline and showing what we were told versus the actual facts as they were revealed.
So we now have a congressional committee investigating what has become a normal situation with the Obama regime - who knew what and when did they know it.
Even though there's now conclusive evidence that the State Department knew withing 24 hours that this was a terrorist attack with al-Qaeda elements, the Obama Administration continued to lie and mislead the American people about that for over a week, insisting that the Benghazi assault was a 'spontaneous protest' directed at an obscure YouTube video. The political context in the middle of an election, with President Obama chest thumping about his supposed foreign policy expertise is obvious.
Mrs. Clinton and President Obama,both of whom made a point of promulgating this fiction sat down this morning to attempt to craft what's obviously a new political strategy to give to the president's spokesmouths and shillmeisters in an effort to tamp down a growing scandal, at least until after the elections.The new line is quite obvious.
Now,people like UN ambassador Susan Rice 'were working on the best intelligence they had available at the time' and spokesmouth Jay Carney insists he never said Benghazi wasn't a terrorist attack, in spite of numerous clips from September showing him doing exactly that:
What all this doesn't explain is why Ambassador Steven's concerns about security for the consulate were consistently denied, why no personnel inside the consulate were armed, including two ex-Navy SEALS, why even a request for a barbed wire fence was turned down and warnings from the Libyan government itself were ignored,or why a 16 man Special Forces Security Team and a six member mobile security team were removed from Libya one month before the easily predictable flash point of the anniversary of 9/11.
Today, Eric Nordstrom, a regional security officer who left Tripoli about two months before the attack, told the committee that Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Programs Charlene Lamb wanted to keep the number of U.S. security personnel in Benghazi “artificially low.”
And Lt. Col. Andy Wood, the head of a 16-member special operations team that left Libya in August, said Stevens wanted his team to stay in the country. As I mentioned previously, he was appalled , and said it was unbelievable to him that the State Department withdrew the security teams when they did because of the 13 security incidents before 9-11.
Secretary Clinton is on a major hot seat here.
Rep. Issa has not called on her to testify yet, and indeed he's compared her desire to cooperate quite favorably with that of Attorney General Eric Holder and the Department of Justice on Fast And Furious. But sooner or later, some awkward questions are bound to be asked.
Since the State Department knew within 24 hours that this was a highly organized and planned terrorist attack, why did Mrs. Clinton repeat an obvious lie about a spontaneous protest and a reaction to a video? Were she and other administration figures taking direction from President Obama and pushing a false narrative to shield him from taking a well-deserved political hit?
Or, if she claims she was unaware of the intel the State Department she runs was fully aware of, doesn't that call to attention her incompetence and unfitness for the position she holds?
If the president and administration figures knew that their story about the YouTube video was false, aren't they guilty of giving it extra publicity and thus exacerbating the assaults on our embassies after the Benghazi attack?
Why has there been no mention by the Administration of the fact that Ambassador Stevens body was sodomized and mutilated after his death? Are they afraid that the truth might outrage Americans and destroy the carefully nurtured narrative of the Arab Spring and pragmatic, peaceful Islamists?
Why were the security teams removed leaving the consul and its personnel defenseless? Why were their lives and safety entrusted to a small group of rag tag Libyan security that appears to have been infiltrated by al-Qaeda and their affiliates?
None of these are going to be easy questions to answer, and Secretary Clinton may very well be put in a position to either admit that President Obama and his team asked her and other administration figures to lie for political purposes to protect his candidacy or to fall on her sword and take a bullet by appearing naive and incompetent.