Benghazi: why now?
The Benghazi story seems to be heating up, eight months after the fact. Previews of the whistleblowers’ testimony (see also this) ought to be profoundly disturbing to the Obama administration and the Clinton camp, who are likely to counter by presenting dissenting witnesses who will deny everything but who may not be able to keep their fingers in the dike as firmly as before.
There have been many fascinating things about the Benghazi incident. The terrible story itself, and the abysmal and seemingly deliberate failure of the administration to provide enough security to protect. The initial coverup. The coverup of the coverup. The coverup of the coverup of the coverup. The eager cooperation of the MSM in the coverup. The indifference of a huge swath of the American public. The left’s talking points in the MSM and the blogosphere. The Candy Crowley incident, which seemed to effectively quash Mitt Romney’s attempt to bring it to attention during the debates. The Hillary Clinton story, and the ironic fact that it is Hillary Clinton who is involved, she of the 3 A.M. phone call anti-Obama advertisement back in 2008.
And now the whistleblowers have come to the forefront. Which brings us to the question that’s been puzzling me, and to which I may or may not get an answer as time goes by: why has it taken so long, and why is it coming out at this point? I have a better hunch about the first part of the question; after all, the whistleblowers say they were threatened and intimidated and their input was suppressed by the Accountability Review Board that investigated the Benghazi attacks for the State Department (an investigative review which is itself now under investigation, by the way). So I understand why it took so long. But if so, why are they finally able to speak now? What has changed?
It may merely be a demonstration of the fact that the wheels of justice (and congressional committees, which are not necessarily the same thing, alas) grind slow, and that it takes a long time for things to move. Or it may be that—well, I’m not sure exactly what. Has some pressure been removed? Has dissatisfaction with the Obama administration been building among those who have long defended it and done its bidding? And are some of those people Obama’s protectors in the MSM and/or in Congress? Is it the State Department that’s getting angrier, and if so why now? Or is it Hillary they’re out to get, now that she’s no longer their boss?
I honestly don’t know, and I doubt you do either, although theories will probably abound. And yes, I know this is probably not the most important part of the story, but I actually think it’s very important nonetheless, and that’s because any government incident or outrage or bungling or treachery—be it Benghazi or anything else—can only matter in the long run if it sees the light of day. And the only way that can happen is if the people involved are allowed to tell what they know, and if that news filters out to those with the power to do something about it and to the American public itself.
There was little question in my mind from early on that this story was being aggressively shaped to reflect as well as possible on Obama (and Clinton), and to assure that he would not be impeded in his all-important quest for re-election. That mission has most definitely been accomplished. But if all of this had come out back in September or October, would it have changed the outcome? I’m not at all sure, but what I am sure about is that the MSM would have done everything it could to minimize and suppress it (as they did do to the more limited information that did manage to come out prior to the election).
And how much will it end up mattering now that more negative information about the administration’s role is emerging? That’s another question I keep asking. There are those who have long been predicting that Benghazi would come back to bite Obama, hard, but I haven’t been one of them. I don’t have much faith that the left’s counter-efforts to suppress and minimize and invalidate won’t succeed, or that the public hasn’t become too jaded and/or uninvolved and/or amoral and/or cognitively-challenged to care about these matters. As I wrote back on December 1, 2012:
The American people do not seem to be “concerned,” either, not at all…[F]ew people except us blogophiles on the right are listening, and Carney and Obama have learned that simply thumbing their noses at the American people is an excellent way to get the people to shrug.
I discovered this myself a few days after the election, when I had dinner with an old friend who is an intelligent, moderate, non-leftist Democrat with some conservative tendencies. This friend just didn’t care about Benghazi or the administration’s handling of it, didn’t know the details and was cynically dismissive of the topic because “all politicians lie.”
Well, they surely do””but not this brazenly, because most politicians at least have the fear of being called to account by the media and then the American people. I thought Mitt Romney should have pressed this much more in the third debate, but I also understood why he did not: it probably would have been perceived as beating a dead horse.
…[W]ill most members of the press ever get tired of prostituting themselves in the service of Obama? Is there anything about Benghazi that will finally get to them…?
So far I think the answer is a resounding “no,” but I would be exceedingly happy to be proven wrong.
I wouldn’t change a word even now, five months later.
Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) feels that the worst aspect of the administration’s handling of Benghazi could be any actions it took to see that Nakoula, whose video was blamed at the outset, was imprisoned ASAP:
Because what it’s looking like is that Nakoula was targeted and jailed so as to provide a scapegoat/villain in a politically motivated cover story that the White House knew was false. If that’s the case, it’s extremely serious indeed, and in some ways more significant than whatever lapses and screwups took place in Benghazi. I’d also be interested in hearing from Nakoula’s attorney, Steven Seiden, about any threats made by the government to secure a plea deal.
If there’s an impeachable offense anywhere in the Benghazi affair – and at this point, I’m not saying there is – it’s more likely in what happened with Nakoula than in the problems abroad, which by all appearances are simple incompetence, rather than something culpable. Railroading someone in to jail to support a political story, on the other hand, is an abuse of power and a breach of trust.
“. . . to assure that “[Obama] would not be impeded in his all-important quest for re-election. That mission has most definitely been accomplished.”
True enough, however had this information been released prior to November 2012 IMO the media would have spun it as a mean-spirited attempt to undermine Obama’s brilliant reelection campaign. Then, it would have possibly been buried in the aftermath of an Obama victory
Perhaps better to come out now when no immediate election is in progress and Benghazi sands essentially naked in the news cycle. Even CBS (Bob Scheiffer) has taken note, and adoration of Obama aside, no one, especially the adoring minions, likes to be seen as having been played for a fool.
Neo: “I honestly don’t know, and I doubt you do either.”
I DO know! But just for that. Im not going to tell you now.
There are a couple possibilities I’ll add:
1) They are about to come down hard on some conservative/Republican in the State Department that messed up during the operation or something that had to do with the funding of the security. This is all prep work to allow for that.
2) They are allowing it now to have smoke away from what is going on in Syria or the Boston Bombing because something newsworthy will come out of either situation.
You really have to get sinister to think of the possibilities huh.
I do wonder about the timing also.
“the Clinton camp, …. who may not be able to keep their fingers in the dike as firmly as before.”
Stop with the straight lines already.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2319192/Why-Left-hates-families-MELANIE-PHIILLIPS-reveals-selfish-sneers-Guardianistas-Left-actively-fosters–revels–family-breakdown-.html
OT, but did you read this yet, Neo?
The whole affair is sickening. To be treated with such contempt by our government, joined by the media, and allowed by the self-serving cynicism of Americans…I just. I dunno. Maybe we’re a dying civilization and it’s time to cash out and sit by a beach somewhere.
Two reasons why they are finally able to speak and they’re both rather obvious:
1. The Congressional investigation has provided them the opportunity they didn’t get with the bullshit administrative investigation. (Thank you tea party and the 2010 elections. Let’s do it again in 2014!) Let’s remember one of the first things that Obama demonstrated once elected was that IG persons would be ruined. Remember IG Walpin investigating Kevin Johnson in California for the use of funds from AmeriCorps? Remember Obama’s Annenburg Challenge, ACORN, his wife’s involvement with Chicago’s hospitals?
Obama laid the foundation; Congressional Republicans folded. We’re still reaping that betrayal but the new tea party Republicans are enabling the whistleblowers. We need to support them.
2. The whistleblowers perceive that they are ruined or will be ruined anyway. Can’t leave around those lose ends, right. Not for 2014 or 2016.
Bullshit on rationalizing this too. Clinton and Obama failed in their most important executive duty. Their failure cost lives. The truth, if fully known, would doom their careers. They then lied and lied and lied and continue to lie.
The public has no duty to care about Benghazi. Neither has the MSM — they give it lip service but swear no oath to it. Congress on the other hand has such a duty and if in the fulfillment of that duty it seems as having been undertaken under the cone of silence by the media, or abject ignorance of the public, or willful obtuseness by either, then so be it. It is precisely because there is no public interest or MSM clamor that it needs be done, and not as PR pretense but thoroughly. It is one thing to say all politicians lie, it’s another to say all politicians are exempt from their responsibilities; and mal and misfeasance and misprisions in office are as meaningless as their oaths are pro forma. House Republicans may never get a chance better than this to make a statement, a bulwark, gain redemption, and start the reclamation.
Plus, nobody seems to care that the killers are still free to sip tea in local cafes, while the United States of America has jailed some poor slob for posting a YouTube video. Imagine that. Jailed for speech in the USA!!! Our “watchdog” media are indeed shameful.
You know, David Gregory could have been arrested and imprisoned for bringing an assault rifle into DC. Do you think we could somehow pin these new Benghazi revelations on him or any of his videos?
What now?
How about a voluntary “strike” on Wednesday to watch the testimony of Hicks.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57583014/diplomat-u.s-special-forces-told-you-cant-go-to-benghazi-during-attacks/
Excerpt:
Q: But do you think, you know, if an F-15, if the military had allowed a jet to go fly over, that it might have prevented [the second attack]?
A: Yeah, and if we had gotten clearance from the Libyan military for an American plane to fly over Libyan airspace. The Libyans that I talked to and the Libyans and other Americans who were involved in the war have told me also that Libyan revolutionaries were very cognizant of the impact that American and NATO airpower had with respect to their victory. They are under no illusions that American and NATO airpower won that war for them. And so, in my personal opinion, a fast-mover flying over Benghazi at some point, you know, as soon as possible might very well have prevented some of the bad things that happened that night.
sharpie: but there was a previous Congressional investigation in October 2012. Only one of the three whistleblowers testified then (Thompson, the one who doesn’t even consider himself a whistleblower), and the MSM barely reported on what he said, even though it put the lie to what the administration had said. See October 10th and following in this timeline.
See here from someone who predicted this before the election. It’s mano-a-mano State vs White House.
http://thediplomad.blogspot.com/2013/05/benghazi-again.html
It is very difficult to keep dirt under the rug these days, even with the MSM in your pocket.
Heard someone today, maybe Rush, talking about Hllary’s “what difference does it make?” outburst. Commented to my wife that it is fairly easy to get under Hillary’s skin and get her to erupt. I hope that the GOP candidate/machine will keep the needle in her during the 2016 campaign.
Thanks, Neo.
Reading that timeline that shows all the different investigators from the FBI, the Senate, the House, various IG bodies, the names McCain and Sessions and Graham are prominent, and I don’t trust them to have the guts to really get to the truth. Perhaps they caused a little embarrassment, yeah. Maybe get a little capital from their constituents, yes, but do the job of a Cruz, no.
Add then Issa in the house who showed he wasn’t all that capable in Fast and Furious (at least to my mind, he wasn’t aggressive enough).
So until the only people who become involved who really had the balls to jerk people up and expose them, which were the junior members of the House, nothing of real substance happened.
In other words, the usual get along crowd failed and really didn’t want to know the truth. They lack the killer instinct and duty. But that changed with this:
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/23/house-gop-administration-blew-benghazi-response/?page=all#pagebreak
Excerpt:
Some House Republicans want to create a Watergate-style special committee to investigate the attacks, but leaders have resisted, saying the existing investigative, defense, foreign affairs, intelligence and judiciary committees can handle it. Tuesday’s interim report is the result.
Short answer: Failure of Republican leadership but saved by the newly elected tea party members like Ted Cruz.
There is no better argument than this debacle for why we need term limits. Politicians get comfortable, lose their values, become vulnerable to blackmail, and lose contact with people and reality.
The most interesting cause for the Benghazi debacle was posted by Doug Ross. Really—why try to render all military personnel in the region ineffective? Because, for some reason–maybe the one one in Doug’as article–there weren’t supposed to be any effective military personnel in the region at the time Whether for this reason or another, our government was trying to prevent the military from doing its job at that place and time.
This administration is so evil, I would put nothing past it.
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2013/05/that-crazy-benghazi-conspiracy-theory.html
A large part of this, I think, is due to anti-Hillary Democrats, who are not a small number. We forget how quickly she was dumped in 2008 just as soon as Obama looked like a viable candidate. They now see a great opportunity to hang Benghazi on her. Also very possible they’re getting the help of the Obama camp. What does he care who’s president in 2016? It’s always been all about him, after all.
Ann: It seems to me it’s too dangerous for Obama himself to encourage that. He might get caught up in the accusations, either directly or by association.
http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/
Mr. Simon, as usual, is worth reading. In brief, it’s the failure of the State Dept who “lied not for ideals, but for self-interest.”
Like the long term RINO’s.
We can at least hope this will hobble his presidency to the end of his term. It might not kill it, but it might restrict it’s ability to run free and dangerous.
Perhaps the question of “why now?” can be explained by 1.) persistence on the part of Issa and others – despite the lack of support from the House and Senate leaderships – is just now producing results; and 2.) the youtube video misdirection and the State Department’s sham of an investigation were conspiracies and conspiracies are difficult to contain.
Whatever is involved, this is a good thing. I hope the House investigation results in special prosecutor and a full blown media event that consumes weeks as the truth is slowly revealed.
Ann- it may be the opposite. If this was going to come out, better now than in 2015 when her highness is preparing for her coronation. The Clintons may be engineeing this and controlling the information to minimize future damage.
You could be right about that, southpaw.
Then again, possible contenders for the 2016 Democratic pres. nomination are busy strategizing today: “One Democratic politician who is considering a presidential run has focused his deliberations with advisers entirely on how, or even whether, to challenge Clinton.”
If Benghazi soon starts to hurt Hillary, I’d say it makes it very likely that folks such as that unnamed politician will opt to challenge her.
If, as Roger Simon claims, the State Dept is to blame for Benghazi and the cover-up, then what has Obama got to do with it?
The State Dept is implementing Obama’s strategy of giving the Muslims their caliphate and in return they stop being terrorists. But the damned MB couldn’t even keep up their part of the bargain. They failed to restrain AQ in Benghazi.
Comparing this deal to N. Chamberlain’s deal with Hitler, Obama’s deal looks even more stupid. At least Hitler had the capacity to keep his end. The MB–not a monolithic group and certainly in no regards able or willing to stop a Boston Marathon type bomber–has no capacity to keep its end of the bargain. And hasn’t the Muslim raised Obama ever heard of taqiyya?
IMPEACH.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/298021-huckabee-obama-will-be-ousted-over-benghazi
http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2013/05/04/benghazi-impeachment-suddenly-not-so-far-fetched/
I speculate it took folks a while to set things up so they could commit career suicide. Or perhaps they were already getting marched to the place of execution and figured they would take as many with them as they could. Be nice to read the story some day.
http://thehill.com/images/stories/blogs/globalaffairs/benghazi.pdf
The Report from the five Congressional Committees. I do so hope this gets grass roots power.
The Congressional Report I cited above breaks down the Benghazi matter into three main areas:
before, during, and after. The most incriminating of the three is the “after” because the proof is there of lies and deceiving the American people and Congress. The next worst area is “before” where general accusations of denying appropriate security and having a policy ill-equipped to the reality and needs of the situation are made. The last area, “during” is the one area where the awful charge of “let them die” is made, but has the least proof in the Report which finds that no gov’t agency refused to provide help.
But I don’t know. The attack started at 9:40 at night. Woods and Doherty were killed at 5:15 in the morning or over 7 hours later. Are you telling me we couldn’t get any assets to Benghazi within 7 hours? Bull shit.
Well I’m pretty sure I will sound like a loon for this one, but I think it was a hit. The only other plausible idea I know of is that it was an attempted kidnapping, prelude to a prisoner swap for the Blind Sheikh. And I am not prepared to credit these wizards with simple incompetence. Doherty and Woods made it dirtier than it would otherwise have been and died themselves in the process. But Stevens was never going to survive.
J. Christian Adams knows a thing or two about being a whistleblower. Here’s his take and remember to watch on Wednesday.
http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2013/05/06/does-obama-care-more-about-benghazi-families-or-himself/?singlepage=true
Excerpt:
On Wednesday, we’ll see America at her best, when regular citizens make choices that will become history. On Wednesday, men who care more about the truth and the Benghazi families than the president and Ben Rhodes do will testify.
Something from Jack Murphy, a special ops person who wrote a book on Benghazi with Brandon Webb:
https://sofrep.com/19350/answering-special-operations-speaks-about-benghazi/
May have said it before here:
One of the ex-SEALs was using a laser designator or targeting device. The laser thing was after my time, but when I’ve broached the subject elsewhere with younger guys, the agreement is you don’t do that without a shooter ready to blow the target up. You’re in commo with him, ready to see the thing go away.
If you’ve got no heavy asset ready to shoot, this is a waste of time, not to mention a risk. And you’re not shooting, yourself, which is a real opportunity lost.
Thus, if the report is true, somebody was on the horn discussing when and where to blow up some attackers rightdamnnow.
And nothing happened. Like to hear a tape of that conversation.
It comes down to basic worldview, basic beliefs. Do you believe the Muslim world hates us but will accept us if only we apologize for George Bush and our horrid imperialism? That is Obama and Hillary’s belief and it emasculated the security needed by our representatives in foreign countries and (can it be denied) our citizens here at home.
Boston and Benghazi are intricately linked and that link is the torch Obama carries for Islam, a torch that burns brighter than his devotion to the United States of America. That’s his crime and the crime of all the progressive idiots in America.
sharpie,
to the people with their heads in the sand (apathetic until stirred up to vote against Republicans at election time) your voice sounds extreme, unfair and discriminatory.
To those paying attention, Obama’s effigy is being burned in Latin American countries, Arab countries, and Islamists are becoming bolder and bolder as Christians in those countries are being tortured, killed and are fleeing in droves.
To the press who are willing accomplices. Shame on you!
Yes. And who arrested him? I’m pretty sure Holder’s DOJ was involved. This whole mess isn’t just State, it involves DOJ, DOD and the CIA. This all comes together above Holder’s level and Clinton’s level.
The Left believes the greater and truer threat is conservatives, bible and gun clingers, and the NRA’s Constitution.
They think that once they eliminate those people, like they did at WACo and Ruby Ridge and countless SWAT raids since, that they will have the power to “deal with Islam” on an equal footing, as allies or enemies. Meanwhile, they cooperate with Islam to defeat a common foe: you.
Benghazi ? YAWN!
Sorry, I was channeling most of the American public there. Sadly, I think that you are right Neo; most people don’t care and most likely will never care about what actually happened in Benghazi or the aftermath.
For people that call this investigation a witch hunt, remember that 1) four americans were lost. 2) there were acknowledged problems with security and 3) the public was lied to. Do you not think that it is the duty of our government officials to get to the bottom of it?