From late Wednesday NY Times:
"WASHINGTON — A stinging report by the Senate Intelligence Committee released Wednesday concluded that the attack 16 months ago that killed four Americans in Benghazi, Libya, could have been prevented, singling out the State Department for criticism for its failure to bolster security in response to intelligence warnings about a growing security crisis around the city.
The report is broadly consistent with the findings of previous inquiries into the attack on Sept. 11, 2012, but it is the first public examination of a breakdown in communications between the State Department and the C.I.A. during the weeks leading up to the deadly episode at the diplomatic compound where J. Christopher Stevens, the American ambassador, died.
It is also the first report to implicitly criticize Mr. Stevens, raising questions about his judgment and actions in the weeks before his death. Like previous inquiries, the Senate investigation does not cite any specific intelligence warnings about an impending attack.
The events in Benghazi and their aftermath became the subject of a fiercely partisan debate, with Republicans accusing Obama administration officials of making misleading statements about connections between the attackers and Al Qaeda. In an addendum to the bipartisan report, Republican committee members singled out former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, a possible Democratic presidential candidate in 2016, as bearing ultimate responsibility for lax security at the diplomatic compound in Benghazi."
So now, will the Times' publisher, editor, somebody take responsibility for the report which appeared in the paper the Sunday before New Years? Or, will the leads on the morning or evening news shows take the Times to task? No? I didn't think so.
The "Old Gray Lady" is beginning to show its age and has decided to sit on its past laurels gained during its hey-day of the 50s, 60s and 70s, when it truly was the "Newspaper of Record". It's motto of "All the news that's fit to print" should be changed to "All the news that we can make up". It's just so sad.
Anyway, back to the Senate report.
Obviously, the report doesn't criticize Susan Rice, the Obama darling, uhh, the National Security Advisor, you know, the one who ran interference and took the fall for the bogus video excuse. Surprisingly, the administration doesn't really put her out much to take anymore falls for it. I wonder why?
Again from the Times:
"Together with the conclusions of previous investigations, the new Senate findings are likely to increase pressure on Patrick F. Kennedy, the under secretary of state for management, whose office oversees diplomatic security. Republicans on the committee noted that Mr. Kennedy held a similar job in the prelude to the bombings of two American Embassies in East Africa in 1998 and should be held accountable for the Benghazi tragedy."
So, because he is Teddy's son, even though he screwed up in 1998, Barry decided to give this dope a do-over? And, although he was confirmed by the Harry Reid Senate, NOW they find he was not the best man for the job? Wow! What a courageous stand! Anything not to blame St Hillary.
Who else could they blame? They thought long and hard before they decided to blame Ambassador Stevens for causing his own death. Yeah, that's the ticket! He was only asking for additional security for months before the attacks and when when none was forthcoming, he finally resorted to recommend training of Libyan nationals to protect the compound. And even that was denied.
The only mention of the role Secretary Hillary played in this debacle was in the Republican addendum to the report. As noted above, she was held responsible but not blamed, for any of the screwups. "After all, at this point, what difference does it make?" And because the Dems on the committee approved the addendum as written to be added into the final report, the Republicans voted to approve the overall final report.
And,voila! A bi-partisan report! Isn't that nice?
No, really, it's not. It is a disgrace. The members of the Senate on this committee should resign for this whitewash.
Imagine if Sam Ervin did this!
The report is broadly consistent with the findings of previous inquiries into the attack on Sept. 11, 2012, but it is the first public examination of a breakdown in communications between the State Department and the C.I.A. during the weeks leading up to the deadly episode at the diplomatic compound where J. Christopher Stevens, the American ambassador, died.
It is also the first report to implicitly criticize Mr. Stevens, raising questions about his judgment and actions in the weeks before his death. Like previous inquiries, the Senate investigation does not cite any specific intelligence warnings about an impending attack.
The events in Benghazi and their aftermath became the subject of a fiercely partisan debate, with Republicans accusing Obama administration officials of making misleading statements about connections between the attackers and Al Qaeda. In an addendum to the bipartisan report, Republican committee members singled out former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, a possible Democratic presidential candidate in 2016, as bearing ultimate responsibility for lax security at the diplomatic compound in Benghazi."
So now, will the Times' publisher, editor, somebody take responsibility for the report which appeared in the paper the Sunday before New Years? Or, will the leads on the morning or evening news shows take the Times to task? No? I didn't think so.
The "Old Gray Lady" is beginning to show its age and has decided to sit on its past laurels gained during its hey-day of the 50s, 60s and 70s, when it truly was the "Newspaper of Record". It's motto of "All the news that's fit to print" should be changed to "All the news that we can make up". It's just so sad.
Anyway, back to the Senate report.
Obviously, the report doesn't criticize Susan Rice, the Obama darling, uhh, the National Security Advisor, you know, the one who ran interference and took the fall for the bogus video excuse. Surprisingly, the administration doesn't really put her out much to take anymore falls for it. I wonder why?
Again from the Times:
"Together with the conclusions of previous investigations, the new Senate findings are likely to increase pressure on Patrick F. Kennedy, the under secretary of state for management, whose office oversees diplomatic security. Republicans on the committee noted that Mr. Kennedy held a similar job in the prelude to the bombings of two American Embassies in East Africa in 1998 and should be held accountable for the Benghazi tragedy."
So, because he is Teddy's son, even though he screwed up in 1998, Barry decided to give this dope a do-over? And, although he was confirmed by the Harry Reid Senate, NOW they find he was not the best man for the job? Wow! What a courageous stand! Anything not to blame St Hillary.
Who else could they blame? They thought long and hard before they decided to blame Ambassador Stevens for causing his own death. Yeah, that's the ticket! He was only asking for additional security for months before the attacks and when when none was forthcoming, he finally resorted to recommend training of Libyan nationals to protect the compound. And even that was denied.
The only mention of the role Secretary Hillary played in this debacle was in the Republican addendum to the report. As noted above, she was held responsible but not blamed, for any of the screwups. "After all, at this point, what difference does it make?" And because the Dems on the committee approved the addendum as written to be added into the final report, the Republicans voted to approve the overall final report.
And,voila! A bi-partisan report! Isn't that nice?
No, really, it's not. It is a disgrace. The members of the Senate on this committee should resign for this whitewash.
Imagine if Sam Ervin did this!
No comments:
Post a Comment