Tuesday, May 14, 2013

Letter to Uncle T. on BENGHAZI!

Uncle T.,
How can a lawyer say that incompetence (not negligence) is a crime?  Mind you, I'm not accusing anybody of incompetence.  Hindsight is 20/20.

Another good test of whether it's a kooky conspiracy theory or a real scandal is try to avoid using the pronoun "they."  Can you do that when you explain Benghazi?  

The GOP Congress slashed the State Department's diplomatic security budget by $500 million, i.e. Congress appropriated less money than Obama asked for. Hillary warned Boehner back in 2011 that such cuts would hurt national security.  If you want to find fault, start there.

Regarding threats -- duh!  There's a reason DOS personnel in Libya get danger pay... because it's dangerous!  U.S. personnel were in a conflict zone where al Qaeda affiliates were known to operate.  Then again, why did Congress cut DOS's budget?  We also got threats before 9/11 that Rice and Bush apparently ignored. Criminal incompetence... or nothing concrete enough to act on?  Be fair.

Next, the military commanders on the ground -- you know, those guys that politicians are never supposed to question -- decided not to scramble jets or send in FAST commandos from Spain during those 2 days. Was that the right decision? I don't know. But it was their decision. It wasn't a political decision.  Are you saying that SecDef Panetta, General Ham and General Dempsey at AFRICOM should be held accountable for "criminal" incompetence?  Remember Panetta's words: "the basic principle here… is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on; without having some real-time information about what's taking place."  They didn't know so they didn't send in commandos.  

Here's the Benghazi timeline sent by Panetta to the House Armed Services Committee.

Next, what happened after.  Talking points for a Sunday talk show one week after. OMG, that's important.  I mean, that's like testifying under oath.  And that was when we still didn't know who carried out the attack.  We STILL DON'T KNOW.  Yet it was terribly important for the Right to call it a "terrorist" attack by al-Qaeda.  Why?  I don't know.  What difference does it make?  Apparently it makes all the difference, even though those people will still be dead.  (By the way, how many times did Cheney and Rice go on Sunday talk shows saying Saddam had WMD, ignoring all the evidence that he didn't have any? No crime, no incompetence there? Remind yourself here.)  

Next, there was no cover-up about security. The State Dept. did its own investigation.  Congress has read the partly classified report and has not disputed its findings.  The report did not say the video was the cause of the attack; they said most likely some planning had gone into it, but it was an opportunistic strike.  No cover-up there.

Next, this deputy mission chief Hicks says he is being mistreated for "blowing the whistle," although he still has a job at the same level of pay.  The State Dept. is not allowed to comment on his employment status since it's a personal matter.  So the lawyer in you should wonder what the other side of the story is.  By law, we cannot hear it.  

So, in all the above, tell me who did what wrong and how it rises to the level of a cover-up or even a criminal act. Be specific, counselor!

Here is a liberal take on what the State Dept. & White House did wrong.  


[ I have cleaned up Uncle T's spelling and grammar a bit. - J

My how you play word games. Since when is it not a cover up if only incompetence is involved and not a crime. (The little Democratic soldier marches on, with blinders always in place, no matter what the facts are).

The facts are that there was a specific warning given to the State Dept. (and possibly Secy. of State Hillary Clinton) of increased activity indicating the real possibility of a planned terrorist attack. The State Dept./ Clinton's response was to ignore the warning.

The Benghazi embassy then specifically requested increased security due to the known warnings and known increased terrorist activity.  The State Dept./ Clinton's response was to deny same.

It is overwhelming evidence that you NEVER let the facts get in the way of your opinion when you declare the you "don't get it" because the State Dept. sure "got it " and realized that it's incompetence costs American lives. The Dept's response was to  just plain lie and declare that the attack was an isolated unplanned uprising due to a video. That's a cover up by anyone's but your definition.

Obama sure "got it" as he tried to protect Clinton and his administration and continued the unplanned isolated uprising lie.

Lying about the warning and lying about the denial of requested additional security and then making up non-existent facts in an attempt to deny culpability are facts for which you should be outraged.

UPDATE (05.16.2013): McClatchy is doing some tough reporting on Benghazi that gives the lie to the GOP's insistence on some kind of scandal or cover-up.  Check out these two articles:  "Benghazi emails show CIA deputy did most of editing on talking points," and "Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers for more security, U.S. officials say."  

No comments: