Not to hurl an insult here, but to an extent you guys are being played with this entire Benghazi scandal. Why? because it torpedo's Hillary, or at least attempts to. There is no White Water type scandal here, But HC is the leading democratic presidential hopeful at this point. And the repubs know she would be tough to beat. So let's get the witch hunt machinery oiled up and see what we can get to stick to the wall. . A well practiced strategy.
Let's look at Benghazi. Where mistakes made? Obviously! Was the embassy under protected? Yup! But, you guys who want less government should understand that. The repubs voted to cut the State department's security budget. What did they think that was going to do? Lead to increased security around the world? Working with less money bureaucrats have to make tough decisions. Some of those decisions are going to be wrong. See, no conspiracy! Smaller government has consequenses. You wanna pay for 30 cents on the dollar security then 30 cents on the dollar security is what you get.
The testimony of the three state department officials who testified before congress gave no evidence that this security failure sprang from anything more than using limited resources efficiently. IOW you get the security that you pay for.
It was not Hillary's fault that budget constraints led to security on the cheap. if you want to find a scapegoat there, look to the repubs who cut the security budget.
As for the special forces not brought in to rescue the embassy personel? Not Hillary's call. Not even Gregory Hicks call. That was a call made by the military chain of command in charge of the region. Again trying to use the limited forces available to them as efficiently as possible. In this case they decided to defend the embassy in Tripoli which they believed to be under threat of imminent attack. It was their assesment that the forces could not reach Benghazi in time to do any good. This decision was later backed by the Pentegon. Of course Hick's disagrees with this. So, you need to decide who to believe on this point. The military experts in charge or a diplomat who is upset that his team was murdered on his watch. Regardless, Hillary wasn't involved in the decision.
As for cover up? Hmm not really. Did the Obama admin blow it when they said the attack was the result of a video. Yup! deliberate? Not so much. Did O label the attack a terrorist act? Again Yup, almost immediately. Just ask Mitt Romney! Still the admin was trying to walk the tightrope between terrorist attack and not attacking Islam. Yet lying purposely would only lead to more embarrassment when the truth did finally come out. Why would they be motivated to do this?
What about the prime target here ,Clinton? Did she cover up or is anyone covering for her? For her failure to protect our diplomats? Not accordingto the Pickering report. The report commissioned by Hillary and vetted by repubs clearly puts the blame on the buracracy of the state department not responding to intelligence that our diplomats were in danger. Wow, a report that fingers Hillary! Some cover up!
What about Hicks? Much is made from the right wing diatribe that he was demoted for becoming a whistle blower. The truth? Hicks asked to come back to the states. he is riding a desk at full pay until something more to his liking comes along. Some demotion! Obviously no one is telling him he can't speak freely. Even if it isn't the truth.
So witch hunt? What else would you call it?
