Benghazi report's rancid revelations: Democrat attempt to cover Hillary's ass fails

01.23.2014
What Difference Does It Make? - Hillary Clinton

When anything bipartisan comes out of a polarized Washington, one should be grateful. That's why a Senate Intelligence Committee report on the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks in Benghazi, Libya, that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans represents progress of sorts.

The committee, chaired by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., faults the State Department and intelligence community for failing to prevent the attacks. The committee determined that the U.S. military command did not know about a CIA annex in Benghazi and that, writes The Washington Post, “the Pentagon didn't have the resources in place to defend the State Department compound in an emergency.”

Feinstein criticizes some Republicans on the committee for adding a section in the report called “additional views” in which they intimate that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was culpable in the attacks. In a statement, Feinstein, wanting the record clear, says the accusation was “patently false” and that Clinton was “not mentioned a single time in the 58-page bipartisan section of our Benghazi report.”

Yet in an Oct. 16, 2012, interview with CNN in Peru, Clinton said about Benghazi, “I take responsibility. I'm in charge of the State Department's 60,000-plus people all over the world, 275 posts.”

So, Clinton was “in charge” but not at fault, is that it?

What's needed is for House Speaker John Boehner to appoint a select committee, modeled after the Senate Watergate Committee, with subpoena powers to question under oath witnesses and those in charge.

According to an exclusive report from Breitbart.com, three relatives of those killed in Benghazi, including Pat Smith, the mother of Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith, have written to Boehner, asking that he name a special committee. Pat Smith has said President Obama and Secretary Clinton promised her they would find out what happened to her son. So far she has heard nothing.

A New York Times' editorial states, “The report, parts of which were blacked out, says there is no indication that the CIA ... knew of a time or place for a specific attack. It describes the attack as ‘opportunistic' and not ‘a highly coordinated plot.' This dovetails with an investigation by The Times, which found that the attack was triggered in part by spontaneous anger over an anti-Islamic video.”

The Times has a lot invested in its incorrect position, and to issue corrections might take gallons of ink.

If media elites ever awarded prizes to Fox News, that network's chief intelligence correspondent, Catherine Herridge, would deserve one. Her tenacious and accurate reporting kept the Benghazi story alive when the mainstream media appeared to have lost interest. In an email to me, Herridge writes about those who died in Benghazi: “We cannot bring them back, but we can honor them with the facts.”

It's a shame the Obama administration does not seem to share her attitude. That's why Boehner must name a special committee to uncover what the administration appears to be covering up.

source