Desperate Democrats and their media collaborators began circling the wagons today as damaging testimony from whistle blowers oozed like raw sewage from the House Oversight Committee hearings on the embassy attack in Benghazi, Libya.
For their part, President Obama and his apparatchik ex-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have stiff armed the committee by stonewalling, equivocating and evading. Instead of transparency, the duo have unleashed their accomplices to defame the whistle blowers in a sleazy attempt to stymie the truth.
It is obvious that Democrats and their media lapdogs only care about one thing: applying Teflon-coating to Hillary to insure her presidential anointment in 2016. The nation's interests are a distant second. A murdered ambassador and three other dead Americans are mere collateral damage.
It has become clear that President Obama wants Hillary to take the fall for Benghazi. This helps explain his glowing tribute to Clinton in a carefully orchestrated television interview after her decision to step down from her post. It was Obama's parting gift to purchase her loyalty.
As the hearings opened, Democrat conspirators in Washington framed the proceedings as partisan political theater designed to dredge up settled issues. The problem with that template is the whistle blowers aired explosive new testimony that contradicted Clinton's accounts at a Senate hearing.
Among the reputation-shredding evidence unveiled about Clinton at the House hearings:
1. The second in command to slain ambassador Chris Stevens disclosed he spoke directly to Secretary of State Clinton at 2 a.m. on the night of the attack. The deputy, Gregory Hicks, told her that the embassy had been raided by terrorists. Yet Clinton waged a public campaign blaming the slaughter on Muslin reaction to an obscure, anti-Islam video posted on the Internet. Clinton even took the unusual step of denouncing the video next to the flag-draped coffins of the victims. When questioned at a Senate hearing about the reasons behind the attack, the impetuous Clinton cried foul, claiming "what difference does it make?"
2. Hicks was ordered not to talk to Congressional investigators by Clinton's chief of staff, Cheryl Mills. When he refused to follow her instruction, Clinton's State Department tired to muzzle Hicks, dispatching an attorney to accompany the deputy on any discussions with members of Congress. Later, Hicks was demoted in retaliation for his defiance.
3. U.S. security chief Eric Nordstrom asserted that Clinton "absolutely" was briefed on the slain ambassador's repeated requests for additional safeguards at the Libyan embassy. Clinton's signature appears on memos denying the ambassador's pleas for additional security. It is well documented that the Benghazi compound was below minimum security standards. Only the Secretary of State is authorized to grant exemptions to this standard. Clinton never acted, despite the obvious security threats.
In spite of the weight of this evidence, the nation's media only recently awoke to the serious lapses in Clinton's judgment. Once they could no longer ignore the scandal, their mission became to shield Hillary by trying to shift the blame to her subordinates in a lame attempt to spare her reputation.
In light of the committee hearings, Speaker of the House John Boehner should appoint a special counsel to investigate the lack of adequate security at the embassy, the failure to send aid during the attack and the resulting cover up by Clinton and Obama Administration officials.
The special counsel's first order of business should be to subpoena Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment