And so far the only one to have suffered any consequences of the Benghazi terrorist attack cover-up was a whistleblower. Gregory Hicks.
Perhaps the most damning statement found in Stevens’ journal is one reported by Foreign Policy dated September 6th “Dicey conditions, including car bombs, attacks on consulate, British embassy, and our own people. Islamist ‘hit list’ in Benghazi. Me targeted on a pro-Q [Qaeda? Qaddafi?] website (no more off-compound jogging).” This is similar to a paragraph found in early drafts of the Benghazi talking points:
Since April there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has [sic] previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.
But all that was taken out. Meanwhile the “Accountability Review Board” looked for ways to avoid assigning the blame to the head honchos:
ARB co-chair Thomas Pickering told CBS’ Bob Schieffer on “Face the Nation” in May that he and his colleagues had ample opportunity to question Secretary of State Hillary Clinton herself but concluded that conducting an interview with her was not necessary. “We knew where the responsibility rested,” he said.
In defending the ARB’s findings on Benghazi, Pickering, who co-authored its report with former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Mike Mullen, had no use for whistle-blowers like Gregory Hicks, the No. 2 official in Libya at the time of the strike that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. Hicks had told the House Government Oversight Committee he believed the ARB report “let people off the hook.”
…According to a Fox News review of recent congressional testimony and internal State Department memos, Undersecretary Patrick Kennedy, the man not interviewed by ARB, signed off on an internal memo nine months before the attack that green-lighted the Benghazi operation complete with its lack of security.
The December 2011 memo from Jeffrey Feltman, then-assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs (NEA), referred to Benghazi not as a future diplomatic post but only as a “consulate.” This exempted it from rigid mandatory security standards required for facilities like embassies.
So Kennedy was a-ok with setting up a post in a country filled with anti-American fanatical Islamists without common sense security and no one bothers to ask him why?
No one bothers to ask him if he consulted with Clinton?
How about that 10pm call between Clinton and Obama the night of the attack?
…if I were investigating Benghazi, I’d be homing in on that 10 p.m. phone call. That’s the one between President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — the one that’s gotten close to zero attention.
Benghazi is not a scandal because of Ambassador Susan Rice, State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland, and “talking points.” The scandal is about Rice and Nuland’s principals, and about what the talking points were intended to accomplish. Benghazi is about derelictions of duty by President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton before and during the massacre of our ambassador and three other American officials, as well as Obama and Clinton’s fraud on the public afterward.
A good deal of media attention has quite appropriately been lavished on e-mail traffic between mid-level administration officials in the days leading up to Sunday, September 16. That is the day when Ms. Rice, a close Obama confidant, made her appalling appearances on the Sunday-morning political shows. Those performances were transparently designed to mislead the American people, during the presidential campaign stretch run, into believing that an anti-Islamic Internet video — rather than a coordinated terrorist attack orchestrated by al-Qaeda affiliates, coupled with the Obama administration’s gross failure to secure and defend American personnel in Benghazi — was responsible for the killings.
Fraud flows from the top down, not the mid-level up. Mid-level officials in the White House and the State Department do not call the shots — they carry out orders. They also were not running for reelection in 2012 or positioning themselves for a campaign in 2016. The people doing that were, respectively, President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton.
And still to this day the State Department continues to obstruct the investigation rather than openly, and honestly assisting it.
— Darrell Issa (@DarrellIssa) June 24, 2013
[T]he Department has been unable to provide firm dates for a single witness interview. In fact, it is my understanding that interviews will not occur until the middle of July because the State Department is just now preparing documents and other materials for the witnesses to review. I respect the witness’ interest in preparing to answer the Committee’s questions; however, I am concerned that waiting weeks or months while the Department prepares witnesses to be interviewed creates the risk that their testimony will have been rehearsed or coached. It does not require weeks of preparation to answer questions truthfully.
Why would they delay delay delay?
One name….Hillary Clinton