Are the Republicans helping to cover-up Benghazi?
This week the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee are resuming their Benghazi investigation where four Americans, Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Tyrone Woods, Glen Doherty and Sean Smith were killed by terrorists at a CIA outpost in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012. The question is will Republicans like Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) remain firm, expose the Benghazi cover-up, and hold the Obama-Clinton regime accountable or will they cave like other Republicans already have? This critical question must be asked because a Benghazi whistleblower has stepped forward and already contradicted not only the Obama administration’s “official” Benghazi story but parts of the Republican Benghazi Interim report, released on April 23 that agreed with the Obama administration’s contention that no one was denied any help.
First, there is a cover-up because if a Benghazi cover-up were not taking place why are there whistleblowers? Whistleblowers make public disclosures of corruption or wrong doing. An administration who has nothing to hide would welcome with open arms all witnesses who could provide any and all information on Benghazi to prevent such an attack from happening again. That is not happening here. Instead Americans with eye witness accounts, whistleblowers, have not been allowed to speak publicly, and are seeking protection from reprisals.
Reportedly some have been threatened. We now know of at least four witnesses from the State Department and Central Intelligence Agency who have been denied the ability for proper counsel with the appropriate corresponding security clearances. That means their ability to speak freely is restricted. If a whistleblower discloses information with someone, even an attorney, who does not hold the corresponding security clearances, they are in violation of their oath and could be charged and face prosecution. This is basic how-to-silence-a-person-101 kind of stuff.
Furthermore it should not have taken media appearances for attorney Victoria Toensing, a former Justice Department official, to get the State Department to begin the process of clearing her to enable her to properly represent her Benghazi client. Thus far, only three names of whistleblowers have been made public—seven months after the attack. As Fox News reported, they are: “career State Department officials: Gregory N. Hicks, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attacks; Mark I. Thompson, a former Marine and now the deputy coordinator for Operations in the agency’s Counterterrorism Bureau; and Eric Nordstrom, a diplomatic security officer who was the regional security officer in Libya, the top security officer in the country in the months leading up to the attacks.” That’s it.
Moreover, the more you understand what was really happening in Benghazi, the more critical it will become to you that every person, survivor, involved, and not just a handful, should come forward and speak. Why? Because most people were working in their “lane,” which is highly compartmentalized; that means not everyone knew who was doing what for what agency or contractor in Benghazi and other parts of Libya at any given time. Anything less than real transparency allows the full story to be concealed from public view.
Recall from the very beginning the Obama-Clinton regime has said that there were no forces available to assist Ambassador Stevens and the other Americans in Benghazi. They denied the charges that personnel who wanted to help were told to “stand down.”
The “Interim Progress Report for the Members of the House Republican Conference” on the Benghazi terrorist attack, agreed with the Obama-Clinton regime, contradicting the most disturbing and explosive allegation reported about a month after the Benghazi attack, Jennifer Griffin’s Fox News “Exclusive: CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say.”
“Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command — who also told the CIA operators twice to “stand down” rather than help the ambassador’s team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11 ….”
“In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. “
On page 15 of the interim Benghazi report, the Republican Committees found that no one in the U.S. government denied any emergency assistance and disputed the use of lasers:
“The House Armed Services Committee conducted a review of air assets available to respond to Benghazi. No U.S. government element refused or denied requests for emergency assistance during the crisis. The evidence also does not show there were armed air assets above Benghazi at any time or that any such assets were called off from assisting U.S. personnel on the ground. According to witness testimony, the security officials on the ground did use laser sights, but they did so as an escalatory demonstration of force in an effort to deter some attackers. They were not lasing targets for air assets (emphasis mine).
The Republican interim Benghazi report cites a House intelligence Community staff briefing held on December 14, 2012 with key surviving personnel and U.S. security officials.
So what are we to believe? Are the Republicans not getting or not telling the full story?
Look at the politicians’ track record of duplicity, of saying one thing while doing another, and then ask yourself why would a whistleblower lie? It’s their lives on the line.
Last Tuesday, a Benghazi whistleblower backed up the initial whistleblowers from the October Fox News report, contradicting both the Obama-Clinton regime and the Republican interim report.
“A military special ops member who watched as the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi unfolded last September told Fox News the U.S. had highly trained forces just a few hours away, and said he and others feel the government betrayed the four men who died in the attack.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, and appearing … with his face and voice disguised, the special operator contradicted claims by the Obama administration and a State Department review that said there wasn’t enough time for U.S. military forces to have intervened in the Sept. 11 attack …
“I know for a fact that C-110, the EUCOM CIF, was doing a training exercise,” in Croatia. “And they had the ability to act and to respond,” he said.
So then why were the Republicans so quick to confirm the Obama-Clinton’s regime’s “official” account? Will the Republicans continue to put on a theatrical performance on cable TV creating the illusion that they will hold the administration responsible, but when the cameras are turned off, they are putting on paper something else?
Remember, under both President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama American forces have been sent to war without the ability to win. As previously reported suicidal polices and rules of engagement including catch and release (where the military is ordered to catch terrorists and then release them) and COIN (General David Petraeus so-called counter-insurgency program).
The dirty little secret politicians from both parties do not want you to know is that for over a decade military families have worried about whether the insurgency/terrorists or the U.S. bureaucracy would kill their loved ones. Their worries were never without merit. Benghazi provides even more proof to back up their genuine concerns.
Now it is not only military lives that are disposable, but a U.S. Ambassador’s life as well. Who sends their military on multiple deployments for years on medications under counter-productive policies? Previously the military could not be deployed while medicated or serve multiple deployments.
Who did not back up their serviceman, be at during Haditha, Pat Tillman’s death, the Battle of Ganjgal, Benghazi and so forth? The Bush and the Obama administrations.
Most importantly, whose interests are these American presidents serving by misusing and abandoning America’s armed forces?
The Benghazi investigation resumes on Wednesday.