39 share
Clearly, as I listen
to House committee testimony, Thursday morning (8.00 am pt), there are two strategies occurring at the same
time.
One is the GOP’s concern for what did and did not
happen, during the murders at our
unprotected embassy, in Benghazi. A General Robert Lovell was and is “center
stage,” along with three academics who
appear to be amiable to the policy of Libyan reconstruction.
The General’s only concern is/was his regrets and
convictions regarding what we did not do, at the time of the disaster.
The two academics’ concerns were/are more centered in
advancing a healthy Libyan state.
The General’s testimony is devastating. He is newly retired after 33 years of
experience in and around the State Department,
as a military representative. His
testimony includes:
(1) This is the first time in 33 years I am aware of an
Administration preventing military intervention under similar circumstances. (2) It is not that we could have save lives. Rather,
it is that we did not try. The
military doctrine is “Always move in the directions of gun fire.” (3) We (the military in the region) waited for leadership and direction from the State Department and/or the Administration, leadership and direction that never occurred. (4) The video had NOTHING to do with the attack, and this was common knowledge within hours
and before the attacks were completed.
The Democrats spent their time moving away from the General's
testimony, never questioning him as to
his specific testimony, but, spending time justifying the Administrations
policy of meddling in Libya and taking down Gaddafii. Of course,
NONE of the testimony to that point, had anything to do with the email that
implicated the Administration in a cover-up. Committee Democrats, instead, question the three academics, with a focus on the correctness of the middling policies of the Administration, into Libya.
One of the academics did make this point: In essence, the point was made that to pursue action as to Benghazi is unnecessarily inflammatory while, doing nothing, frees the Administration from any moral price or responsibility.
One of the academics did make this point: In essence, the point was made that to pursue action as to Benghazi is unnecessarily inflammatory while, doing nothing, frees the Administration from any moral price or responsibility.
By the end of today’s session, we have two major talking points: A), the truth about the cover-up by someone who was actually in the "war room" while this criminal action was taking place, and, B), a
vetted counter testimony, establishing
the importance of the Administration’s Libyan policy with no reference to the
testimony of the General.
The Administration intends to ignore the General's testimony, as well as the stated implications of the Rhodes email, hoping to confuse the American people until they, the People, tire of the stonewalling and subterfuge being used by the Administration in dealing with Benghazi.
And still, no one has asked the two really big questions: "What time did Obama go to bed, and why did he not call all hands available, into the war room at the WH?"
