Posted on 01/20/2014 7:01:18 PM PST by smoothsailing
January 20, 2014
When anything bipartisan comes out of a polarized Washington, one should be grateful. That's why a Senate Intelligence Committee report on the September 11, 2012, attacks in Benghazi that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans represents progress of sorts.
The committee, chaired by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., faults the State Department and intelligence community for failing to prevent the attacks. The committee determined that the U.S. military command did not know about a CIA annex in Benghazi and that, writes the Washington Post, “…the Pentagon didn't have the resources in place to defend the State Department compound in an emergency.” This communications failure between agencies, supposedly solved after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, had not been. If it had, the report found, Benghazi likely could have been prevented.
Sen. Feinstein criticized some Republicans on the committee for adding a section in the report called “additional views” in which they intimate that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was culpable in the attacks. In a statement, Feinstein, wanting the record clear, said the accusation was “patently false” and that Clinton was “not mentioned a single time in the 58-page bipartisan section of our Benghazi report.”
Yet, in an Oct. 16, 2012, interview with CNN in Peru, Clinton said about Benghazi, “I take responsibility. I'm in charge of the State Department's 60,000-plus people all over the world, 275 posts.”
So, Clinton was “in charge,” but not at fault, is that it?
In her additional views entry, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said, “To be clear, the responsibility for the attack lies with the attackers themselves. Unfortunately, the promises of the president and other senior administration officials to bring any of the attackers to justice have ringed hollow thus far. The report finds that more than a year after the attack, the terrorists who perpetrated the attack have still not been brought to justice.”
The New York Times reported in September, “Intelligence officials have a general idea of where they are hiding. And the military has a contingency plan to snatch them. ... But the fledgling Libyan government, which has little to no control over significant parts of the country … has rebuffed the Obama administration's efforts to arrest the suspects.”
The report contradicts claims by the administration that the attacks were sparked by an anti-Muslim video and concludes that individuals associated either directly with al Qaeda or one of its affiliates were involved and likely planned and carried out the attacks.
What is needed is for House Speaker John Boehner to appoint a select committee, modeled after the Senate Watergate Committee, with subpoena powers to question under oath witnesses and those in charge.
According to an exclusive report from Breitbart.com, three relatives of those killed in Benghazi, including Pat Smith, the mother of Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith, have written Boehner asking that he name a special committee. Co-signers include “scores of conservative and military leaders.” Pat Smith has said President Obama and Secretary Clinton promised her they would find out what happened to her son. So far she has heard nothing.
A New York Times' editorial writes, “The report, parts of which were blacked out, says there is no indication that the CIA … knew of a time and place of a specific attack. It describes the attack as ‘opportunistic' and not ‘a highly coordinated plot.' This dovetails with an investigation by the Times, which found that the attack was triggered in part by spontaneous anger over an anti-Islamic video.” The Times has a lot invested in its incorrect position and to issue corrections might take gallons of ink.
In the “alternative” media universe truth can still be found. If media elites awarded prizes to Fox News, that network's chief intelligence correspondent, Catherine Herridge, would deserve one. Her tenacious and accurate reporting kept the Benghazi story alive when mainstream media appeared to have lost interest. In an email to me, Herridge writes about those who died in Benghazi: “We cannot bring them back, but we can honor them with the facts.”
It's a shame the Obama administration does not seem to share her attitude. That's why Speaker Boehner must name a special committee to uncover what the administration appears to be covering up.
You are correct.
It goes to the top, of all three branches.
IN THE GRIM DARKNESS OF THE FAR FUTURE THERE IS ONLY GOVERNMENT.
|
|
| The Tao of Republican Orthodoxy [Direct Link] |
The Modern Democratic Party & You [Direct Link] |
There is no fault here. It was part of the plan. The Ambassador was supposed to be attacked.
It’s really not that complicated.
For the election, Obama needed to show that he could be tough on Islam.
He planned to have the Ambassador kidnapped and then he would get tough on the terrorists and they would give the Ambassador back. Obama a hero, election in the bag.
He stripped away all the security to make it easy. Problem was that some Navy Seals showed up and started kicking some Muslim butt. Terrorists figured they were set up and the real plan was to wipe them out. They thought that Obama was trying to be the hero by defending the Ambassador.
Things spin out of control, Ambassador is abused and killed Muslin style. Obama and Hillary have to go into spin and lie mode.
It seems to me that the facts of what happened seem to fit well into this scenario.
As long as you're dreaming, Cal, would you like a pony?
bookmark
That is the most plausible explanation I have heard to date.
In a normal world I would say you are "bat sh-t" crazy. However, with this administration nothing would surprise me. A point that few have commented on is why would the administration put out a totally false story given the chance the truth would come out before the election? If the truth were known before the election he would have lost. Obama could have easily went after the terrorists with drones and special forces. The real question is why was the lie about the attack less risky? Killing or capturing the terrorists would have shown he was tough on terrorists that hurt and kill us. He would have still won the election.
The only logical answer is the truth is far worse than saying, "it was terrorists and I will hunt them down and kill them and then actually do it."
I would suspect if he started to hunt them down and kill them, the truth would have come out. Why can CNN drink tea with them and interview them in a cafe in Libya but Obama and the CIA and our special forces not find them nor kill them. Their is only one logical answer, "Obama will not let them."
To quote knankles, “What difference does it make”.
Yea she’s correct it’s only four dead Americans no big deal so lets move on, I’m running for POTUS and that is much more important.
My promise to the American voters is, “Less hope and less change, period”.
Liberals consider themselves the smartest people on the planet. Consequently, they can’t admit that they’ve been wrong about everything since at least World War II.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.