Wednesday, May 8, 2013

Today's Hearings On Benghazi + Previous Hearings Show Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Set Foot In The White House

Most of what Gregory Hicks testified to today at the hearing was already known to many of us who have been following the entire Benghazi scandal from the beginning. On this blog, I've written about it many times.

One major outcome of this hearing (and previous hearings) was very clear: Hillary Clinton should never set foot in the White House as president of the United States and certainly as Commander-in-Chief.

Even before the attack on Benghazi, Trudy Rubin in the Philadelphia Inquirer (a progressive publication) wrote the following regarding Hillary's tenure as Secretary of State: "Clinton produced no diplomatic breakthoughs nor any strategic doctrine...She has no major foreign policy success."

During the same period, Jennifer Rubin in the Washington Post wrote: "Where is the record of accomplishment let alone greatness?" (again, referring to Clinton's tenure). In addition, it's clear she was a failure in foreign police considering what is now happening in Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood and in Syria to name just a few major hot spots.

And today's hearing reinforces my claim (she should never set foot in the White House as president).
  • Greg Hicks testified one of the last things he heard from Amb. Stevens was the consulate was under attack. It was not a spontaneous attack. In fact, we learned Hicks spoke to Clinton at approximately 2 a.m. and mentioned nothing about the video. When Hicks heard the administration was using the video as reason for the attack he was "stunned and embarrassed."
  • In fact, Hicks prior to today's testimony said "everyone in the mission" knew it was a terrorist attack.
  • We learned there was more than one "stand-down." In fact, there were several. Hicks did not know who ordered the standown. He referred that question to Lt. Col. Gibson, Africa Special Operations Command.
  • We learned, when asked about additional assets to help our guys in the battle, Hicks was told they were not available.
  • We still don't know who ordered Amb. Rice to keep peddling the bogus story about the video. Question: why has not Amb. Rice testified about her role and told her to lie about the attack?
  • We still do not know who ordered the initial CIA talking points to be edited that indicated the attack was a terrorist attack.
So what did we learn today? At a minimum, it's clear there was gross incompetence. However, it appears there were also efforts by somebody in the administration to stonewall the investigation. It also clear Amb. Rice did not tell the truth in her many TV appearances the following Sunday. As indicated above, we still do not know who told her to push an obviously bogus narrative.

We need more hearings. Many questions remain unanswered. For example, what does Pres. Obama know and when did he know it? And, if reports are accurate (according to former Sect of Defense Panetta), why was he not engaged that day and evening during and after the attack?