Benghazi Part III: Now with completely irrelevant questions
No history montage today folks. If you need to know how we got here, feel free to click here, here, here, and here. In fact, please click all the foregoing because it makes my total numbers go up, which only increases my self-esteem. So CIA Director/General Petraeus quit his job because he had an affair with some broad who wrote a book about him. Eventually, that whole thing became an episode of the Jerry Springer Show, complete with some FBI guy sending a shirtless photo to the lady who approached the FBI about angry emails being sent to her by the Petraeus mistress. The timing of the Director’s resignation seemed odd, since the FBI knew about the affair since late summer, but no action was taken until just before Petraeus was scheduled to testify in front of Congress regarding Benghazi (not to mention just days after Barry’s re-election).
Since then, Petraeus has agreed to testify behind closed doors, because apparently Americans don’t get to know what their employees are doing with all those taxes. The entire focus of the meeting appears to be who told UN Ambassador Susan Rice to tell everyone else that the attack was caused by some YouTube video about Muhammed that no one watched, when others claimed everyone knew it was a terrorist attack almost immediately.
Patraeus proceeded to agree with the other sources, and in doing so, contradict his earlier behind-closed-doors explanation. Yes, everyone did know it was a terrorist attack almost immediately. So someone gave Susan Rice lies to read to America about how quickly we knew the attack wasn’t the result of a bad movie review. Today we learned that someone at the Department of National Intelligence changed Rice’s lines from “terrorist attack” to “angry protestors who happened to have grenade launchers sitting around the house.” All of this has taken about a week. To all of this I ask: Who Cares?
Does it really matter why Susan Rice stated it was a protest over a video? Does it even matter who told her to say that? Isn’t it more important that Barry himself proceeded to tell both Univision and The View that it was a spontaneous protest something like a week later? Or better yet, aren’t a whole bunch of things surrounding the entire attack significantly more important than why Rice claimed a terrorist attack was a protest?
I submit the following questions are far more important than any of the questions previously asked by Congress:
1. Why were repeated requests for additional security in Benghazi repeatedly denied?
2. Why would Ambassador Stevens choose to meet with someone in Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11, when he knew it lacked sufficient security?
3. Who was Ambassador Stevens meeting with that night, and why?
4. Who knew about the meeting and signed off on it?
5. Did any of the terrorists know about the meeting?
6. Why were reports from Benghazi, that an attack was imminent, completely ignored by whomever received the reports?
7. Why did it take 19 hours to get any military assets to Benghazi, even though everyone knew about the attack approximately 20 minutes after it started, and a live feed from an unmanned drone was being watched in the White House, in real time?
8. Is there any truth to the report from a Fox News source that Navy SEALs were repeatedly told to stand down after they reported hearing the attack as it was happening?
9. Is there any truth to the rumor that terrorists were being held captive, and interrogated, at the Benghazi facility?
These questions are all more important than who told Susan Rice to lie about the true nature of the attack. It’s no mystery that the Obama Administration doesn’t like calling terrorism by its name. These are the questions that the President should be made to answer. If he refuses to answer them, than he should be impeached. Will he be made to answer them? Probably not. But I’m sure the Repubs will make every effort to make sure we think they’re trying to make him answer them.