The intensity level in Washington is heating up with the creation of House Select Benghazi Committee. Already, pugilist jabs are thrown by Nancy Pelosi as she hypocritically rejects appointing members to the committee. Poor Nancy, the same arbitrator of fairness in the Obamacare sham, cast a hallow demand for “fairness and balance” to force Republicans to cave to her insistence of an equal number of committee members selected from each camp.
Nancy is smug with her shrewd ploy to appear non-partisan while painting Republicans as unfair before the committee even begins their work. Pelosi recoils in laughter at her deception which is clearly designed to shape public perception. Pelosi’s grandstanding hides the reality that with equal balance, Democrats would hold the power to veto any House Select Benghazi Committee subpoenas for documents or interviews.
Trey Gowdy, Chairman of the new House Select Committee, is a no nonsense prosecutor and given the outright resistance of Congressional Democrats to forge a mutual fact finding probe of the Benghazi debacle, he will face formidable challenges in his committee’s pursuit of the truth. Every Democrat fallacious “talking point” charge, claim, and spin against Republicans on the House Select Committee will be treated as verifiable fact by the vast liberal political operatives masking as “journalist’ in mainstream media. As soon as the laughter wears off, Pelosi will eventually appoint Democrats to the committee as insurance that her members can sabotage and discredit the committee process each step of the way.
Disregarding Democrats boisterous attempts to box the committee to prevent the committee from probing the relevant actions of President Obama and former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, whose actions or lack of action are the root of the tree in unraveling the administration’s cover-up and calamitous failure in the Benghazi 9/11/12 tragedy.
In the heartland of America, 11 September 2001 is a day imprinted in our memory for the cowardly attack by Al Qaeda terrorist that killed nearly three-thousand Americans. Since then, America’s footing has been raging war with Al Qaeda on distant shores. On each anniversary date of the Al Qaeda attack our Armed Forces and Foreign Service Posts around the globe take added precautions to stay vigilant from another hit. One has to the question why our Ambassador was in the tenuous area of Benghazi or why his security wasn’t automatically increased on 9/11.
The former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, definitely showed she failed the leadership test of the “3 AM” phone call scenario by her inept and indecisive leadership regarding the US Benghazi Consulate. The House Select Benghazi Committee will require Hillary to appear and answer specific questions on her role in the Benghazi scandal. The stench of partisan politics surrounding the entire Benghazi episode is pervasive.
Even a novice faced with CIA and British Intelligence reporting of increased Al Qaeda terrorist training camps operating in the Benghazi vicinity would have taken heed of the urgent Ambassador calls for additional security on the US Benghazi Consulate. Besides the reports of Al Qaeda affiliated roaming the Benghazi countryside, Hillary had to be aware from extensive news coverage of increasing Islamic turmoil enveloping in the Middle East. Did Hillary believe that Libya was some type of European tourist paradise? No, in fact Libya was designated a US Combat Zone.
In order to make sense of Hillary’s actions, a little historical perspective is required. Well, in Obama’s world all things are politics. In 2012 Obama was running for reelection. In Libya a civil war broke out and Obama sided with the rebels authorizing US Air Strikes to push Muammar al-Qaddafi from power. With the fall of Qaddafi, Obama paraded his temporary Libyan foreign policy achievement and exclaimed to the world that Al Qaeda was on the run. In reality, Libya was not pacified and Al Qaeda affiliated terrorist group threatened attacks on the British Embassy, the Red Cross, and the American Benghazi Consulate.
Hillary had two choices to make. First, based on the intelligence reports of a possible imminent attack, she could either reinforce the US Consulate security or remove the staff from Libya. The second course of action was to completely ignore the deteriorating realities on the ground in Benghazi until after Obama’s was reelected.
The pivotal need to portray Libya as safe can only be the rationale for Hillary to hire untrained Libyan militia to provide an American Consulate security. Hillary’s distaste for the military is well known. Is that her rationale why Hillary failed to deploy the “normal” Marine Embassy Guard to provide security for an Embassy or Consulate? For Ambassador Stevens, time was running out and he desperately feared for his own life.
Al Qaeda had stated clearly what they plan to accomplish militarily and then set out to make good of their promise. Red Cross was attacked with mortars and grenades and the Red Cross closed. An attempted assassination was made on the British Ambassador. London then closed down its British Consulate. The US Benghazi Consulate perimeter walls had been attacked on two separate occasions prior to the 9/11/12 event. The severity of the second attack blew a gaping hole through the US Consulate perimeter wall large enough to drive a vehicle through.
Yet, Americans are expected to give Hillary a pass arguing that State Department officials acted independently and they failed to notify her of the worsening conditions in Benghazi. Are Americans to believe when a US Consulate is attacked on two separate occasions by explosives that the Secretary of State was not briefed in her daily morning intelligence brief? Of course not and therefore, Hillary was derelict in her duties when she refused a US Ambassador dire call for additional security and in fact, reduced the security posture at the Benghazi consulate. In truth, Hillary is responsible for the actions of the State Department and as such, she must be held accountable for the Benghazi disaster.
Hillary’s callous disregard for the growing terrorist threat in Benghazi remains unfathomable and to aggregate her buffoonery, Hillary demonstrated complacency when she failed to take precautionary measures to ensure the safety of the US Benghazi Consulate, especially on a 9/11 anniversary in a country designated by Obama as a combat zone. Even to a novice in security matters, the accumulated evidence demonstrates that the Secretary of State had more than ample warnings to assess a high probability for a terrorist attack against the consulate!
So why didn’t Hillary coordinate with the Department of Defense to alert and preposition a Quick Reaction Force (QRF) to respond if needed? Had Hillary satisfactorily performed her job and paid adequate attention to the Libya Al Qaeda threat to include the daily deteriorating conditions on the ground in Benghazi, Ambassador Chris Stevens, Glen Doherty, Sean Smith, and Tyrone Woods may be alive today.
The focus of the Obama administration has and always will be about politics and Hillary chose politics over the safety of her own friend, Ambassador Stevens, and the other Benghazi Americans in harm’s way. Hillary had many opportunities to alter course in Libya but her political progressive view of the world were at odds with her allegiance to her sworn oath of office or her allegiance to her political party. The only plausible assessment is that Hillary chose loyalty to her party and the impending Obama election over the national security needs of her nation.