Friday, November 01, 2013

Benghazi Cover Up Continues


Benghazi has never been satisfactorily explained, but now it's looking like it's literally indefensible.  On the negative sliding scale, we have things that are illegal, and under that we have things that are criminal, under that are things that are some combination of evil, horrifying and disgusting.  This I think falls into that lowest category of wrong.  And, perhaps worse, it's dishonorable.

The CBS report here: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50157981n 
on 60 Minutes last Sunday details the advance warnings given the Pentagon and State, the multiple requests for increased security, the refusal to respond at the time of the attack - except by some special ops guys in Tripoli who didn't ask for permission and chartered a private flight.  We know about the F-18s at Sigonella in Sicily that could have been there in less than an hour.  We know about the flag rank guys who were transferred or relieved of command for suggesting that they could respond.   We know that a mastermind of the Benghazi attack, Ahmed Abu Khattalah, was sent underground a year later because a lower-priority target, al-Libi, was captured the day before that operation was launched.  http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/29/first-on-cnn-us-commandos-were-poised-for-raid-to-capture-benghazi-suspect/

The two special ops guys who did respond, and did save lives, were unknown, unidentified, and silent until they were recently awarded congressional medals for valor
 The other six special ops in Tripoli were asked to remain on site in case the embassy there came under attack.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/30/us-military-commandos-made-it-to-benghazi/

Cue the videos of Jay Carney - and Hillary - and Susan Rice - and Leon Panetta - saying there were no military forces available to send to Benghazi.

Had this been just a panicky refusal to attempt to deal with a difficult situation, it would be a hanging offense.  But given the months of advance warning, the al-qaeda chatter stating the intentions to attack the Red Cross, the British, and the Americans, given that 2 of the 3 had been accomplished, given that multiple requests for increased security had been denied, it looks like a sinister plot indeed.  Not merely a complete absence of honor and integrity and competence but a calculated move to sacrifice men on the ground in the service of... of what?  I gotta say, I'm puzzled.  What deity was being placated by the offering of these men's lives?  The election?

What difference does it make?  Well, Hillary, if you can ask that, you won't understand the answer.

No comments: