You met Greg Hicks earlier. He's the career State Department official whose "jaw hit the floor" when Susan Rice went the 'Full Ginsburg' to spread bogus talking points in the immediate wake of the 9/11 Benghazi attacks. If you thought exposing and debunking the administration's initial dishonest spin was the biggest bombshell Hicks was preparing to drop on Wednesday, you'd be wrong. CBS News reports:
This explosive testimony -- which will play out under the bright lights later this week -- corroborates earlier allegations that support teams were repeatedly instructed to get ready, then to stand down, throughout the eight-hour slaughter. The Obama administration has claimed they deployed "all available resources" during the attack, an account that does not align with several pieces of countervailing evidence:
(1) We've just learned from another whistle-blower (Mark Thompson) that Secretary Clinton actively cut the State Department's counter-terrorism bureauout of the loop during the terrorist attack. (Why?) CBS News reported last November that the Obama administration also didn't convene the inter-agency Counter-terrorism Security Group (CSG) during the raid. Gen. Dempsey hasasserted that the State Department never requested any military assistance from DoD that night. Might that have been because Clinton and the White House were already committed to a political posture of downplaying the terrorism angle?
(2) A separate unnamed whistle-blower says an elite US task force training in Croatia could have arrived prior to the latter stages of the siege, during which Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were murdered. (Remember, Doherty and Woods responded to the consulate attack on their own initiative).
(3) The US had unmanned predator drones hovering overhead throughout much of the attack. One Democratic Senator couldn't or wouldn't say whether those drones were armed.
(4) CBS News, in late October:
(5) Then there is today's aforementioned revelation from Hicks. Taken together, this information points to a scenario in which the Washington-based chain of command declined to exercise several contingencies that could have saved American lives. Let's recall what Gen. Dempsey told Sen. Lindsey Graham in Congressional testimony two months ago:
Hicks will reportedly also tell Congress that special forces reinforcements were urgently needed in Benghazi, in light of the US diplomatic mission's "bare minimum" security capacity. That threadbare security presence is a scandal in and of itself; terrorists had launched escalating attacks one numerous Western targets in Benghazi in the weeks and months leading up to September 11,including two attempts against the US consulate. Four gravestones offer a clear justification for Amb. Stevens' numerous requests for more resources; far less apparent are the reasons why those petitions were summarily denied. I'll leave you with White House spokesman Jay Carney ducking questions on these new developments earlier today:
Shorter Carney: Take your beef up with the Pentagon (who is the Commander-in-Chief, again -- and isn't embassy/consulate security within the Secretary of State's purview?), and kindly refer to our internal investigation (which is now being investigated by an Inspector General for ignoring evidence from whistle-blowers like the men coming forward this week).
UPDATE - On a related note, guess where Al Qaeda's new (unofficial, of course) Northern African regional "headquarters" is?
No comments:
Post a Comment