Wednesday, May 8, 2013

The Benghazi Scandal Is Not Like Watergate--It's Worse

"Are they going to call Hillary again? She needs to know for concussion planning." Tweet by David Burge

It's clear that the Benghazi scandal is not like Watergate. It's worse. While there are many similarities in process, e.g. possible cover-up, stonewalling, etc., as far as we know no one died in the Watergate scandal. So as I await the hearing in about one hour from now, my interest is in process. And it takes the form in the following questions---I believe---need answers:

  • Who specifically changed the CIA initial talking points? It's been reported the CIA knew the attack on Benghazi was a terrorist operation. In fact, Gregory Hicks, who took over immediately after the killing of Ambassador Chris Stevens, said he knew immediately it was a terrorist attack. Hicks also said he asked twice whether an F-16 or some other "fast mover" could fly over Benghazi during the attack. According to Hicks, the response he received was it would take 2-3 hours to scramble jets over Benghazi. The attack took place over a period of 6-7 hours.
  • Who gave the order for military to stand-down? The military had special operations assets in Tripoli, about an hour away. The State Department never activated their foreign emergency response teams which are suppose to assist diplomats who are under attack.
  • The U.S. military also has special response teams to be used in incidents such as these. Why have these teams if we're not using them FOR INCIDENTS SUCH AS THE ONE IN BENGHAZI?
  • Why did the administration send out Amb. Susan Rice to all of the Sunday news shows (the weekend after the attack) to say the attack was "spontaneous" and a response to a non-existent Muslim film when the White House already knew that was a bogus reason?

  • Where was Hillary Clinton during this period? She was Secretary of State at the time. Where was Pres. Obama? Then Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee that he was up all night monitoring the situation and never heard from Pres. Obama.   Panetta also testified that he did not confer directly with Hillary Clinton? Why? She was responsible for the embassy and safety of the staff at the embassy. Any casual observer would think that an act of terrorism would have the president and the Secretary of State engaged. But, according to testimony thus far, it appears they were not.
  • By the way, while I do believe the Cleveland abduction story is important, the cynic in me believes the pressitutes in the media who cover for Obama and Hillary are happy with this diversion today.  Just sayin'.