Tuesday, May 7, 2013

Let the Benghazi fireworks begin

I can hardly wait until tomorrow (5/8/13).  That's when all hell is set to break loose in the House Oversight and Government Reform committee chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA).  Mr. Issa has invited President Obama's number two guy in Libya at the time of the terrorist attack last September in Benghazi.  Of course, according the White House mouthpiece Jay Carney that was so long ago.  Sorry, Jay, but the loss of four of our citizens is still fresh on our minds and people want answers.

We're sure to get them from Greg Hicks, a 22-year foreign service diplomat who said his "jaw hit the floor" the morning he watch UN Ambassador Susan Rice make the Sunday talk show circuit with the concocted story that some video no one had ever heard of caused a demonstration at the consulate in Benghazi to become violent.  Hicks says everyone involved knew it was a terrorist attack "from the get-go."  Hicks told investigators - and will presumably tell Issa's committee - that Ambassador Chris Stevens, who lost his life along with three others in the terrorist attack, reported to him, 'Greg, we are under attack.'

Hicks said, "I've never been as embarrassed in my life, in my career, as I was on that day," referring to Susan Rice's fabricated story shortly after the Benghazi terrorist attacks.

History tells us that most of the great political scandals become scandalous not because of the original act but because of the cover up.  After tomorrow there will be no doubt left that there was a cover up.  The only questioning remaining will be what were they covering up?

My theory is they had scaled down security in Libya to appease the newly-minted Muslim Brotherhood regime and Obama was wanting to demonstrate our good will.  Having been educated part of his young life in a Muslim madrasa I think Obama is bending over backwards to demonstrate that not all Muslims are terrorists.  That's all well and good but in the process he leaves us vulnerable to those who are.

This seems to be a common thread on the left.  Remember after the Boston bombings how NPR was cautioning its listeners not to jump to any conclusions about the brothers' religion?  Even after the younger brother was captured hiding out in a boat CNN was wondering aloud as to what could possibly have been their motivation.

Not all Muslims are terrorists but most of the terrorists these days are Muslim.  It's just common sense that we'd be paying a little more attention to them than anyone else.

I believe what happened in Benghazi was political correctness at its very worst.  This administration wanted so much to prove that stereotyping Muslims is wrong that they allowed our consulate to let its guard down.  I also believe the so-called annex was the true target of the attack.  Whether real or imagined, the terrorists believed the CIA was using it as a black site.  That's why operatives there were told to stand down when they first heard gunfire several blocks away at the consulate.  They ignored orders and ran to the rescue only to have the terrorists follow them back to the annex and lay waste to the site.

Another interesting aspect of this story is Hillary Clinton's involvement.  At least one person is scheduled to testify that Hillary circumvented the State Departments own counterterrorism unit to keep it out of the decision-making chain.  Hillary's people have vehemently denied this but one has to wonder if Hillary will continue to take the heat if, in fact, she was covering for the administration.

I'm not ready to use the "impeach" word yet but I will remind you that in Watergate no one died.

2 comments:

  1. We've heard arguments from all sides about the President and Hillary Clinton's involvement (or lack thereof), what they knew and when they knew it, who ordered Susan Rice to the lie about the YouTube video starting a riot, whether or not armed forces could have gotten there in time, etc. However, Dick Cheney read my mind when he spoke to the Huffington Post last week saying, "When we were there, on our watch, we were always ready on 9/11, on the anniversary," Cheney said. "We always anticipated they were coming for us, especially in that part of the world ... I cannot understand why they weren't ready to go." Since the Benghazi attacks occurred 8 months ago, I have wondered the same thing. Why we weren't prepared for something like this? It's 9/11. In the Middle East. Even if they were able to explain away and make excuses for everything else (although, I don't think they can), there's no reason that on this one day they shouldn't have been prepared, and the fact that they weren't is a gross dereliction of duty that our President needs to answer for. This is the baseline for everything else. Had they been prepared in the first place, it's possible that we wouldn't be having this discussion. Only the President can explain the lack of preparedness. And what explanation can he possibly give? There is none.

    ReplyDelete