Hillary Clinton's panel whitewashes Obama administration - Benghazi consulate attack

From the AP:

An independent panel [consisting of 4 members who were appointed by Hillary Clinton - including the notorious left-winger, Thomas Pickering - and one other member] charged with investigating the deadly Sept. 11 attack in Libya that killed a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans has concluded that systematic management failures at the State Department led to inadequate security that left the diplomatic mission vulnerable.

Despite those failures, the [Hillary Clinton appointed whitewashing panel] determined that no individual American officials ignored or violated their duties and found no cause for any disciplinary action.

"No cause for any disciplinary action"?! Hmmm......

However, the New York Times notes that the panel "faulted State Department officials in Washington for ignoring requests from officials at the American Embassy in Tripoli for more guards and safety upgrades to the diplomatic mission," in light of the numerous attacks that had occured in the country, and in Benghazi, prior to the September 11 attack, including two seperate incidents in which explosives were set off at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi [and "a string of assassinations", and "an attack on a British envoy’s motorcade"].

So, let me get this straight:

Despite all the violence, and the attacks, that were taking place in Libya, State Department officials ignored requests from the U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya for more security. And yet, the Hillary Clinton appointed panel "determined that no individual American officials ignored or violated their duties and found no cause for any disciplinary action"?!!!

Hmmm. A whitewash, indeed......

The report appeared to break little new ground about the timeline of the Benghazi attack during which Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens, information specialist Sean Smith and former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods — who were contractors working for the CIA — were killed.

"The report appeared to break little new ground about the timeline of the Benghazi attack"? Heh. Come on now! We already know the timeline!

But [the panel] confirmed [what is already widely known] that contrary to initial accounts, there was no protest outside the consulate and said responsibility for the incident rested entirely with the terrorists who attacked the mission.

In the immediate aftermath of the attack, administration officials linked the attack to the spreading protests over an American-made, anti-Islamic film that had begun in Cairo earlier that day. Those comments came after evidence already pointed to a distinct militant attack. U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on numerous TV talk shows the Sunday after the attack and used the administration talking points linking it to the film.

The report said there had been several worrisome incidents in the run-up to the attack that should have set off warning bells...

[The Hillary Clinton appointed panel also asserted] that, "There was simply not enough time for armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference."

Sadly, the Obama administration's storyline as to why no action was taken to save the U.S. diplomats in Benghazi kept changing from day to day; it was nearly impossible to keep track of the administration's dizzying, ever-changing, vacillating narrative without getting a severe headache.

Suffice it to say that Defense Secretary, Leon Panetta, admitted to reporters, during a press briefing in October, that the U.S. military had the resources in the region to rescue the diplomats.

"We quickly responded... in terms of deploying forces to the region," Panetta said. "We had FAST platoons in the region. We had ships that we had deployed off of Libya. And we were prepared to respond to any contingency and certainly had forces in place to do that."

"But", Panetta said, "you don't deploy forces into harm's way... without having some real-time information about what's taking place.[They didn't have real time information, my foot] And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, General Ham, General Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation."

But shortly after the aforementioned briefing, the storyline changed. According to the revised version, the military didn't have the resources nearby, hence the rescue teams could not reach Benghazi in time to save the lives of the U.S. diplomats...

The administration's narative received a few additional facelifts, and twists, over the next several weeks; I'm still waiting for the final cut.

In an interview with Fox News, in October, Rep. Jason Chaffetz concurred with Panetta's initial account, except for one significant sticking point:

Panetta conceded, in his initial account, that the military had resources in the region, but he claimed that both he and "General Ham... felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation."

Likewise, Rep. Chaffetz told Fox News that, "in my meeting with Gen. Ham", the General was "asked very specifically, 'Did we have resources in the area?' The answer is, 'yes'. Did we have proximity? The answer is, 'yes'."

However, according to Rep. Chaffetz, the reason Gen. Ham did not send in a team to rescue the U.S. diplomats, contrary to Panetta's claims, is because he did not receive a directive to take action.

Chaffetz:

Gen. Ham was asked, "why we didn't send in some of those assets? The Gen. said he was not requested to do so, meaning that somebody higher up than him - he's a four star General; there aren't a whole lot of people between him and the President - did not request him to take action. That's what's so concerning."

Concerning, indeed. Of course Panetta's distortion is also concerning. [Incidentally, shortly after Rep. Chaffetz met with Gen. Ham (in early October while on a fact finding mission trip to Libya), Panetta announced (on October 18) that President Obama would soon nominate Gen. David Rodriguez to succeed Gen. Ham as commander of U.S. Africa Command.]

So Why didn't Obama send in a rescue team to rescue the diplomats?

Well, I've already offered a response to that question in a previous post, but first let me preface my remarks with something else I previously noted:

We now know that Al Qaeda terrorists/"rebels" are working inside the new Libyan government [inside the interior ministry etc.]. They have also been put in charge of border security, thus allowing more and more Al Qaeda terrorists to flow into the country.

Moreover, an Al Qaeda member, Abdelhakim Belhaj, had been put in charge of, among other things, overseeing security at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli from 2011 until at least the spring of 2012.

Obama's good buddy, Mustafa Abdul Jalil - the head of the Libyan National Transitional Council (NTC) - appointed him to this position.

And, Obama, in his efforts to oust the Gaddafi regime, went along with all of this and effectively empowered Al Qaeda to wreak havoc upon Libya.

And now, as a result of this shocking, calamitous foreign policy decision, four U.S. diplomats are dead.

Hence, the cover-up.

Okay, fine, but why didn't Obama send in a rescue team to rescue the diplomats?

Among the various reasons as to why Obama refused to send in U.S. troops [who were stationed nearby] to rescue the U.S. diplomats, I would posit, and add, the following explanation:

Obama had assured the American people, during the Libyan uprising, that he would assist the Libyan rebels without sending in American boots on the ground.

With the Presidential election looming, he wasn't about to alter that plan. Hence no boots were to be sent on the ground, even if it meant jeopardizing the lives of the 4 U.S. diplomats. For ultimately, their lives had to be sacrificed for the greater good: Obama, and his re-election.

Additionally, the President did not wish to engage in a brand new battle with Al Qaeda terrorists before the election [and even now, he appears to be unwilling to take on the Al Qaeda thugs who murdered the U.S. diplomats], especially when it was he who was responsible for giving Al Qaeda the scepter of power and the reigns of destruction inside Libya.

The deaths of the four U.S. diplomats were essentially a trade-off that helped Obama retain his seat in the Oval Office.

Ultimately four American diplomats sacrificed their lives for the greater cause: Obama.

The reason the President didn't send in a rescue team to rescue the diplomats is because he had already promised that no American boots would be sent on the ground to Libya. Hence no boots were to be sent, even if it meant jeopardizing the lives of the 4 U.S. diplomats.

One final point:

Obama lectured us, and bombarded us, for several weeks about an anti-Islamic video that had absolutely no connection to the Benghazi attacks. It was a desperate cover-up on his part.

But even more nauseating is the fact that Obama, in the aforementioned lectures, appeared to offer some justification to the cold-blooded and barbaric acts of murder. Obama seemed to suggest that a video that is deemed 'naughty' can somehow explain, and rationalize, a brutal and horrific act of murder.

Ugh.....

Good grief....