Remember the Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame CIA scandal during the Bush years? Of course you do. It was on the front page day after day for YEARS. A Special Prosecutor was brought in but he never charged anyone with the crime of revealing Valerie Plame's CIA status. Congressional hearings were also held with a demand that we get to the truth.
It's important to note that no one died in that scandal.
Contrast that with the Obama Administration and Democrat's attempt to cover up the attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012. Four Americans, including the first Ambassador to die in the line of duty in decades, lost their lives. But Democrats have refused all calls for a Special Prosecutor or special congressional panels. And when questions are raised as to why on the scene witnesses have not been identified, let alone brought forward to testify (at least one witness was placed in the hospital under an assumed name) the White House attempts to dismiss concerns by suggesting it all "happened a long time ago."
There are so many unanswered questions about the Benghazi attacks. Why were security warnings ignored and security forces cut back prior to the attack? Why was no help sent during the hours the attack was underway?
One of the most galling questions is why did the Obama Administration lie about a You Tube video being the cause of the attack? Last week I posted the congressional report describing the development of that lie but new reporting by Stephen Hayes at the Weekly Standard brings the issue into even sharper focus.
The CIA originally put out a draft which spelled out advance warnings of threats in Benghazi and clearly stated that "we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attacks." Later, all references to Al Queda and warnings of attacks were omitted. No where do any of these drafts mention You Tube videos as the cause.
But we all recall how often Obama, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other top Administration officials repeatedly blamed a video and downplayed any Al Queda link. Those of us who were informed knew that was a lie but Obama and company repeated it over and over and over. Defending UN Ambassador Susan Rice, who was first to jump out of the gate with the big lie, a State Department spokesperson said "the comments that Ambassador Rice made accurately reflect our government's initial assessment." Nothing could be further from the truth!
On Sunday, U.S. Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA) who serves on one of House committees investigating the attack was asked about the talking points:
Lynch: “They certainly weren’t accurate. I don’t know what the process was there. But, absolutely, they were false. They were wrong. There were no protests outside of the Benghazi compound there. This was a deliberate and strategic attack on the consulate there. So any statements that this was sort of like the other protests that we saw in Cairo and other embassies- this was not that type of case. This was a concerted effort. ”New Witness to Testify
On Wednesday, the House Oversight Committee will hear the testimony of three witnesses, including Greg Hicks, acting Ambassador in Libya. On Sunday, in one of the rare moments when the mainstream media has reported on this attack, Bob Schieffer on the CBS program Face the Nation revealed excerpts of the statements Ambassador Hicks gave to investigators [video full report]:
Greg Hicks: I thought it was a terrorist attack from the get-go. I think everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning.When Amb. Hicks saw Susan Rice's performance on the Sunday show, following as it did an interview on CBS with the president of Libya who stated unequivocally that it was a terrorist attack he was dumbfounded:
Question: ...Did you ever have any indication that there was a protest, a popular protest, outside the mission in Benghazi?
Greg Hicks: No question.
Question: And if there was such a protest, would that have been reported?:
Greg Hicks: Absolutely... for there to have been a demonstration on Chris Stevens' front door and him not to have reported it is unbelievable.
Greg Hicks: ... The net impact of what has transpired is the spokesperson of the most powerful country in the world has basically said that the President of Libya is either a liar or doesn't know what he's talking about. The impact of that is immeasurable. Magariaf has just lost face in front of not only his own people, but the world... my jaw hit the floor as I watched this... I've never been as embarrassed in my life, in my career as on that day... I never reported a demonstration; I reported an attack on the consulate. Chris's last report, if you want to say his final report, is, "Greg, we are under attack." ... It is jaw-dropping that - to me that - how that came to be.Hicks went on to say that he believes the reason it took three weeks to get the FBI into Benghazi to investigate the attacks is because of the Obama Administration insult to the Libyan President. Hicks also called his superiors at the State Dept. to find out why these false statements were made and got the cold shoulder.
Bob Schieffer: Mr. Hicks went on to tell your investigators that no one from the State Department contacted him before Ambassador Rice's appearance. He said:
Greg Hicks: ... I was personally known to one of Ambassador Rice's staff members... I could have been called, and, you know, the phone call could have been, hey, Greg, Ambassador Rice is going to say blah, blah, blah, blah and I could have said, no, that's not the right thing. That phone call was never made.
What we have is a clear case of intelligence information being corrupted for political purposes by the Obama Administration. What a shame this issue wasn't thoroughly vetted by the news media prior to the 2012 presidential election. Instead, we are stuck with a corrupt, incompetent Obama Administration caught in a web of lies! Where is the accountability? Where is the transparency?