The Difference It Makes
If the investigation into the Benghazi attack should turn into a Watergate-like ladder climb to the Oval Office, then it certainly will make a difference at this point, who killed Ambassador Stevens and three other C.I.A. agents, to figure out what happened, and make sure it doesn’t happen again.
The background: We must recall that Libya in 2012 was akin to a Syria or Somalia today. No one doubted that it was an extraordinarily dangerous place for any American to be.
The State Department began receiving cables as early as February of 2012- seven months before the attack- requesting additional security. In June, the U.S Embassy sent another cable, noting the rising level of Al-Qaeda activity. On August 2nd, Ambassador Stevens sent an urgent request for 11 additional bodyguards stating “Host nation security support is lacking and cannot be depended on to provide a safe and secure environment for the diplomatic mission.” These requests were all denied. Not only were the requests for reinforcements denied, a decision had been made to pull the existing marine detachment, some sixteen marines, away from the consulate, leaving it altogether undefended. Who had the authority to deny requests for reinforcements? Who, within the military, would the State Department have needed to coordinate with, for the execution of these decisions that effectively signed Ambassador Stevens death warrant?
The story as it stands today, is that mid-level deputies and assistants made these decisions without consulting then Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, or Defense Secretary Panetta. Is this credible? Is it even plausible? One step further- would any of this have been done without the knowledge and consent of the President?
Once we admit that it is neither credible nor plausible that these decisions were made without the key players being in the know, we are left with only two possible explanations- that Clinton, Panetta and Obama all suffered from a simultaneous massive lapse of judgement- or, that they orchestrated the events. Obviously, politicians of this caliber did not get to where they are by being grossly incompetent or naïve, so we can only conclude that they, in fact, orchestrated Ambassador Stevens death. The logic is inescapable.
We go back to how Watergate unfolded. Those of us who are old enough, will remember that it began as a ‘who cares’ story; a minor break-in to the Democratic National Headquarters by petty thieves, and for no discernable reason- Nixon already had the election in the bag. Why would anyone bother? But the story kept creeping up the ladder, leading to President Nixon’s two top advisers, H.R. Haldeman and John Erlichman, and ultimately, to Nixon himself.
What difference does it make, at this point, who killed Stevens and three C.I.A. agents in Benghazi? With all due respect to Ms. Clinton, it matters a great deal, and we do need to investigate as thoroughly as possible, presidential ambitions or no, to make sure it doesn’t happen again.
For additional background on the Benghazi attack and excerpts from Ms. Clinton’s testimony, click on these links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack#Background
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/10/25/benghazi-obamas-actions-amount-to-a-shameful-dereliction-of-duty/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/special-ops-halted-from-responding-to-benghazi-attacks-us-diplomat-says/2013/05/06/c3f311d4-b6
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/may/08/context-hillary-clintons-what-difference-does-it-m/
Phillip Larrea
No comments:
Post a Comment