"We were fighting a losing battle. We couldn't even keep what we had," said Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, former head of a 16-member U.S. military team that helped protect the embassy in Tripoli.
I caught an hour or so of the House Oversight hearings into the Benghazi massacre on C-SPAN while on the treadmill. Testifying were Colonel Andrew Wood, former State Regional Security Officer for Libya, Eric Nordstrom, State Diplomatic Security head Charlene Lamb and Under Secretary Patrick Kennedy.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/10/diplomatic-security-in-libya-weak-former-military-team-chief-says/
Most all of the questioning came from Republicans. Many of the Democrats were not even present. The 3 Democrats I saw asking questions were lobbing up softballs to the witnesses while the Republicans were hammering away.
Clearly in the hottest water was Lamb, who came across as a pathetic bureaucrat trying to justify her denial of additional security personnel for Libya. The request came from none other than Nordstrom, who was sitting at the same table with her.
Trey Gowdy (R-SC) was visibly angry as he demanded that UN Ambassador Susan Rice and White House spokesman Jay Carney be called to testify as to who gave them the orders to go out and publicly spout information that was so clearly false. The Republicans also hammered home the point that the riots at American diplomatic missions were not caused by any video on YouTube.
At this point, it is expected Rice will be called to testify in a closed hearing in the coming days. The sooner the better.
Meanwhile, the White House is predictably making the intelligence agencies the scapegoat.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/10/white-house-blames-intelligence-agencies-for-benghazi-confusion/
This, of course, is beyond shameful. The State Department and the White House are both lying in order to cover up their own ineptitude, which has resulted in the deaths of 4 Americans. They have said that the protests and the attack in Benghazi were a spontaneous reaction to a YouTube video. They have lied as to the existence of intelligence that screamed for increased security in Libya even as they reduced it and denied requests for more support. They contradict each other's statements with each passing day. It would be laughable if it were not so tragic.
And in the face of it all, they still tell us that Obama leads in the polls and will have an advantage in future debates with Romney in the area of foreign affairs.
6 comments:
For an instant call, it usually comes down to what the person on the desk that day or week said, not what the ponderous machinery of an entire cabinet department did.
Charlene Lamb seems to have made a bad call about security.
Over and done.
So time to "move on", right, Siarlys?
Over and done Siarlys?!
Tell that to the parents of the dead Ambassador, SEALS and the rest, making up the four. You are a heartless scum-bag and perhaps prime for a job with the Obama Administration.
Hillary, is the most complicit, by not attending security briefings for a month prior to the 911 attack at Benghazi and not being aware of the danger in Libya. The crying out for more security went on deaf ears and hence the murder of Americans by Al Qaeda.
The POTUS is guilty of a cover-up of this horrid event, due to his need to cloak his incompetence as a leader, without knowledge of foreign affairs. Rice, the U.N. Ambassador, is merely an Obama puppet, who would sell her soul to the Obama, Chicago machine.
Shame on them all.
Squid
Squid, as a critic you are pathetic.
The parents of the dead Ambassador, the SEALS, and the rest will mourn just as much whether it was Charlene Lamb's bad call, or not, whether she had adequate information to work with, or not, whether Hillary Clinton is complicit, or not, whether it was unavoidable that we would suffer some losses going into such a volatile region, or not.
Of course, after blatantly using the grief of these families for sordid political advantage, you make unsubstantiated claims that "The POTUS" is guilty of a cover-up... We could have a good debate if you ever allowed facts to enter into consideration in your statements.
Siarlys!
You would not know a fact if it his you in the head!
It just so happened that the U.S. State Department had instant feed video coverage of the Benghazi attack. IN FACT, the State Department sent a U.S. drone to film the last hour of the attack at the embassy. The State Department had all the facts they needed to determine tht this even was an act of terrorism.
The POTUS and his minions, such as Hillary, decided that this event would not fit into the "successful war on terrorism" and Al Qaeda. So, the video scam was used.
Squid
Squid, you can call your hallucinations facts, you can pretend to drop them on people's heads, you can stick out your tongue, wag your hands behind your ears, stomp your feet, and splutter "you wouldn't know...." all you want. It doesn't amount to even a plausible attempt at a reasoned argument.
An instant video feed is not a complete set of facts as to the names, addresses, serial numbers, political affiliations, military training, of the people depicted. Assuming the "militia" were not in distinctive uniforms, assuming there were some incensed or bewildered civilians in the picture, it just shows that some angry people attacked our consulated and overwhelmed it.
But since you know so much first hand information about this instant video feed that nobody else has mentioned, not even Fox News... care to share your hyperlink with us?
Post a Comment