What
difference, at this point, does it make? As a veteran I'm sure everyone will
want to serve under a commander in chief that sleeps through 3 AM phone calls,
then lies to cover it up. We really need somebody who judges 5 Diplomatic
Protection Service agents to be sufficient for the most dangerous diplomatic
post in the world. Someone who is willing to cut a military protection detail
to the bone so we can spend more on domestic programs no matter who gets
killed. (snark)
Hillary’s book assures us that she bore no accountability for
Benghazi because the cables requesting more security for Libya didn’t land on
her desk. She also still maintains that
nobody could have known about the attack in advance. She even expects us to believe that it was a
demonstration triggered by an obscure internet video that turned into a riot.
I'm sure all of this blather is supposed to excuse Hillary's dereliction of
duty, but it doesn't. The Libyan Tripoli Embassy and Benghazi Consulate had to
be two of the most hazardous diplomatic posts in the world. The fact that the
Libya security detail was cut before the attack shows Hillary Clinton's
dereliction of duty. Hillary was in charge, so whether she saw the cables or
not, it was her responsibility to make sure her folks were as safe as she could
make them. She wants to be commander in chief. Commanders take the
responsibility for failure even if they didn't get the memo. The confusion
about the attack is also fabricated. There was a live video feed from the
Benghazi Consulate to DC that covered the start of the attack. It showed no
demonstration and no riot. The Secretary of State should have reviewed the
video before sending Susan Rice out to prevaricate. The video lies served
Hillary's interests by obscuring her dereliction of duty. A rogue video was not
predictable, so Hillary and her boss are blameless. However, the 11th
anniversary of 9/11 was predictable. The violent instability of Libya in
general and Benghazi in particular was well known. The whole story is a
self-serving cover-up. When the 3 AM phone call from Benghazi came in, neither
Hillary nor her boss answered the call.
Liberals should try this thought
experiment. It's 2004. On September 11, Bush's Ambassador to
Algeria is killed in a consulate at a port city. Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice go on national TV and say it was a
demonstration against an obscure anti-Muslim video on the web. Bush says
the same thing in a televised speech to the UN a week or two later. The
Bush Administration claims "Mission Accomplished" against Al Qaeda. Bush has Texas imprison the sponsor of the video on
a trumped up charge of parole violation. Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb claims responsibility. No
effort was made to help defend against the attack, despite repeated requests
both before and during the attack, which lasts 7 hours. After Bush wins
the election, Colin Powell tells a House committee, "At this point, what
difference does it make whether it was a demonstration or some guys out for a
stroll who decided to kill some Americans?" How would liberals view
it? I call it the "Bush did it" test.
Hillary’s talking points, as
advanced in the "mainstream" Pravda Press, say it was not her fault
because the Secretary of State controls no security assets. This is not true. For starters, the Secretary of State directly controls the Diplomatic Security Service, which has about 2,000 agents. The Secretary of State can also request
military guards for dangerous posts like Libya.
In the months just before the attack, the State Department rejected
requests to extend the tours of both soldiers and State Department Protection
Service agents in Libya. A 16 man US Army security detail was withdrawn in
August, 2012, just before the attack. Both the commander of the army unit, Lt.
Col. Andrew Wood, and the embassy’s security chief, Eric Nordstrom, objected
but were overruled by the State Department. See the links below.
The
Democrats are also arguing that since Congressional Republicans cut the Diplomatic Protection
Service’s budgets, the lack of security in Libya is the Republicans’
fault. However, the State Department
cutting the security detail in Libya using the excuse of budget cuts is absurd.
There are countries, like France, Germany and the UK, where the security
provided by the host government is great. Why not take the cuts there, and keep
the agents in possibly the most dangerous US diplomatic post in the world? Is
this a case of Washington Monument Syndrome, where the government shuts down
the places that hurt the public the most in response to budget cuts? If it is,
it went terribly wrong and 4 people died.
To sum up, four Americans died from criminal
neglect. Before the attacks, repeated requests for more security people were
ignored or denied. Even though it was the 11th anniversary of the 9/11/2001
terrorist attacks, there were no military assets on alert. There was no
military effort to support our people in Benghazi once the attacks started, not
even any fighter jets to provide air support. The attacks lasted about 7 hours.
Afterwards, the Prevaricator in Chief refused to comment on what he was doing
during the attacks. The immediate explanation of the attacks was a totally
false narrative of an internet video causing a demonstration that turned into a
riot, an explanation that just happened to benefit our Dear Leader's reelection
campaign. Finally, there was an extensive cover-up of the original cover-up.
Yup, it was either George Bush or global warming that caused this mess. Either
way, any further investigation is racist and sexist. (snark)
