Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu

Posted by on May 9, 2013 in International, Politics | 6 comments

7 revelations from the Benghazi ‘whistle-blower’ hearing

Daryl Cagle, CagleCartoons.com

Daryl Cagle, CagleCartoons.com

As I noted here, the Benghazi “whistle blower” hearing yesterday did not produce proof of a cover up, although partisan websites and commentators are insisting it did. What it produced was some news that suggested at the least chaos in official decison making and at the worst incompetence. It also was clear that GOPers now view former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as a likely candidate in 2016 so the race to start negatively defining her and chip away at her high poll numbers has begun.

GO HERE to read the seven revelations from yesterday’s hearing.

See great cartoons by all the top political cartoonists at http://cagle.com. To license this cartoon for your own site, visit http://politicalcartoons.com

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2013 The Moderate Voice
  • dduck

    The Seven Revelations were the same ones I concur with after viewing the hearing yesterday. Which one(s) are incorrect?

  • SteveK

    Thanks Joe good link.

    The comments section was very informative too, the vitriol and vicious anger coming from the right on this is eye opening. It makes me all the more appreciative of TMV… Thanks again for providing us with a well-mannered, well-monitored ‘sandbox’ to play in.

    As one who hasn’t obsessed with every detail of the Benghazi attacks I found one comment especially informative:

    The CIA agents arrived in time to rescue the survivors but were too late to save the Ambassador. The consulate called for help at 9:40pm, the CIA agents were loaded up by 10:05pm and able to rescue the survivors and get back to the CIA outpost by 11:50pm.
    .
    That’s the timeline of the attack on the consulate. There was an additional attack later that night on the CIA outpost but Ambassador Stevens was already dead.

    Edit to add: Note the anger in the comments above the one I linked to and then notice how those most angry about the fiction they were trying to sell as truth just sorta stopped commenting.

  • The_Ohioan

    Steve K

    Exactly right. And the comment by dovigdo

    you might find it helpful to read the NY Times article by David Kirkpatrick, Oct. 15th. here is a brief excerpt:
    [NEW YORK TIMES http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10… ]
    To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck the United States Mission without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video without mentioning Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or the terrorist strikes of 11 years earlier. And it is an explanation that tracks with their history as members of a local militant group determined to protect Libya from Western influence.

    is one that many people will never hear about because though we got the three “whistleblowers” version from this committee, we will never get the version from the Accountabiliy Revue Board from them (except for the fairly ineffective attempts of references to it by the minority members). Note: those people that witnessed this were supposedly also protesting and were interrupted by the militants, as I recall the original story. But we’ve been through all this before and it just doesn’t make any difference to those who don’t want to believe the video had anything to do with the attack – that would make Amb. Rice’s statements correct.

    Said ARB includes the reasons why the FBI didn’t send people in earlier; they didn’t want to lose any more agents in the obviously dangerously disintegrating area. The committee plans to leave it at this – one side heard, consisting of three disgruntled employees. Another reason for taking back the house and having a further hearing to get all the facts on CSPAN. These three guys need to be questioned under oath about why they believe what they say, now, that they believe.

    The very definition of a witch hunt:

    An investigation carried out ostensibly to uncover subversive activities but actually used to harass and undermine those with differing views.

    Including uncovering facts (or speculations) that bolster your case and ignoring those that undermine it. Fine in a court of law, not fine in a democratic republic.

  • zephyr

    A screw-up or failure to anticipate and react effectively is NOT the same thing as a cover-up. Someone please explain this to the political right.

  • epiphyte

    I’m utterly disgusted by this whole exercise. If Hicks was “demoted for speaking up” he should consider himself lucky. His job was Deputy Chief of Mission. He publicly undermined both his mission and the United States government, in furtherance of cynically political ends.

    I’m not saying he shouldn’t be allowed to do that – if he really believes in what he’s saying, that’s certainly his right. He should not, however, expect to hold down a job representing the US government at the same time as publicly working to discredit it. In less enlightened eras people have simply been taken out and shot for less.

    Similarly, those congressmen conducting these hearings swore an oath to bear true faith and allegiance to the constitution of the United States. Not all that long ago they were unanimous in their condemnation of anyone that didn’t unreservedly support two unjustified wars as “traitors”. Yet now they leave no stone unturned in their quest to discredit the government in order to harm their political enemies, regardless of the damage it does to to our national identity, societal coherence and international standing.

    The saddest part is that the punditry now consider this sort of behaviour to be par for the course.

    When I became a US citizen my brother called me from the UK and said “Congratulations – now you’re a national of two countries that used to be great once”. I’m in danger of starting to believe that he may have a point.

  • SteveK

    Someone please explain this to the political right.

    Hahahahahahahahaha! Now that’s funny… I’m sure they’re all ears!

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com