Will Benghazi Hearing Expose Cover Up?

That’s the question that might get answered today. Perhaps we’ll also get an answer to “why did the Obama administration engage in a cover up?” I think we all know there was a cover up, an attempt to deflect what really happened in Benghazi initially, till Team O decided, 2 weeks after the 9/11 attack, that, yes, it was terrorism, after weeks of proclaiming it was a spontaneous film review, which even included Obama saying just that during his United Nations campaign speech. Also, what happened during the attacks, and beforehand in the months leading up to the attack? What did Team O do? What did Hilary do? Where was Obama during the attack?

(Fox News) Republican lawmakers hounding the Obama administration for months over unanswered questions on the Benghazi attack will have their moment, on Wednesday, to demonstrate whether the internal response amounted to a cover-up — as whistle-blowers give long-awaited testimony expected to challenge the White House’s version of events.

Two of the whistle-blowers’ opening statements were obtained by Fox News, and in the statements they affirm their credentials and credibility in testifying about what happened last Sept. 11 in Libya.

Republicans should also subpoena many of the high ranking military officers who would have been involved in the region.

The administration has parried Republican allegations lately by arguing that the attack is old news, that the State Department already has investigated it and that Republicans are engaged in a political witch hunt.

Which is funny, because Team O still Blames Bush for everything.

“The question is, where’s the accountability for lying to the American people?” Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, told Fox News. “The American people were lied to.”

Another question is, why have most of the American media ignored Benghazi? Here is a story tailor made for investigation by a group that used to act like sharks in bloody water. Had this happened with a Republican in office, they would have investigated deeply. How many front page and TV news leading stories did we get on Abu Ghraib? No one died. No one was really hurt. It was certainly improper action which violated the UCMJ, but the media linked the action by a few low ranking military members all the way directly to Rumsfeld and Bush.

There are lots and lots of questions still surrounding what happened before, during, and after. Here’s one that should be asked: did anyone bother to ask the provisional government of Libya for help, and for permission to bring US military units into Benghazi, or at least to inform them we were going to do that? That’s the first step in international diplomacy for an incident like this.

Expect lots and lots of spin and silliness from Democrats on the panel, who prefer to do their protect Obama schtick rather than care about 4 dead Americans.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

3 Responses to “Will Benghazi Hearing Expose Cover Up?”

  1. gitarcarver says:

    The administration has parried Republican allegations lately by arguing that the attack is old news, ………



    The Watergate break in occurred in June of 1972. The investigations concluded with Nixon’s resignation in July of 1974. That’s over two years.

    As someone else wrote, if Hillary’s claim that 4 people died and “what does it matter now?” are true, then why shouldn’t we know the truth?

    Truth always matters.

    The administration is going to have to figure out who to throw under the bus. If it is Hillary, there goes her 2016 run for the presidency and I don’t think the Clintons will stand for that.

  2. john says:

    Unless you believe that the entire top command of our military are now hypnotized ObamaBots then you have to go with the hearings are just Kabuki theater for the Fox rightwing theater goers. The one person who should have known what security was like was the Ambassador. He thought it was safe. He held a meeting 1 hour before the attack with the Turkish Ambassador. The initial attack was over in 1 hour. That resulted in 2 deaths. The next day those that were killed by the mortar attack had already been reinforced. Will the conservatives try to throw our military under the bus for political gains? I think not, yet.

  3. gitarcarver says:

    Sorry john, but you are wrong.

    Stevens thought the embassy was in danger and had requested more security, He was a professional, and despite being turned down for what would have made his mission safer, he continued with that mission.

    You talk about throwing people under the bus and then you do just that to Stevens.

    Secondly john, the memos within the administration show there was a cover-up on what caused the attack.

    Third, the commanders on the ground said they were told to stand down. The “higher ups” in the military you mention say THEY did not order the stand down, but they were not the ones that were able to activate the FEST teams – the Secretary of State was.

    Finally, Gregory Hicks, the former deputy chief of mission in Libya who was on the ground standing by a plane as a response team was ready to board was told by the commander he had received a “stand down” order. Hicks was in the middle of the events and now you have the gall to call the man a liar.

    You really do have a problem with facts, don’t you? If this had been Bush in the White House you would be screaming for his head. Because it is Obama, you think everything is fine.

    Once again, you have blood on your hands john.

Pirate's Cove