Tag Archives: Benghazigate

CNN: Benghazigate Exposed

It seems the dam is finally breaking on the Benghazigate scandal.  Yesterday, CNN reported that dozens of intelligence personnel were on the ground last September 11th when two U.S. facilities came under jihadist attack.

The network says that the CIA is “going to great lengths to make sure whatever it was doing [in Benghazi] remains a secret.” That entails “pure intimidation” of CIA operatives with first-hand knowledge of what went on there, to keep them from telling the truth to the American people and the Congress.

For months, Rep. Frank Wolf and now over 160 other legislators have co-sponsored a resolution to establish a special select committee to investigate Benghazigate. The CNN revelations are but the latest reminder that we cannot allow the coverup of this real scandal to persist.

Wolf to Boehner: Establish a select committee on Benghazi before one-year Anniversary of attacks

Washington, D.C. (June 19, 2013) – Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) today continued to push for the establishment of a Select Committee to investigate the Benghazi attacks.

In a letter to House Speaker John Boehner, Wolf said that too much of the investigation on Benghazi was being done behind closed doors in classified briefings at a time when congressional approval is at an all-time low and Americans are disappointed with the lack of transparency in their government.

Wolf reiterated that a Select Committee, which currently has 158 Republican cosponsors – the majority of the majority in the House, is the only way to efficiently and openly investigate the attacks.

“Too much has been done in a piecemeal fashion, behind closed doors, thereby robbing the American people of clear answers to important questions surrounding the murder of a sitting U.S. ambassador and three civilian employees, and the grievous injury of untold others,” he wrote.

Wolf noted that even the upcoming hearing before the House Armed Services Committee next week in which Gen. Carter Ham is scheduled to testify will be closed to the public and the press.

“There is no reason Gen. Ham’s testimony shouldn’t be public,” Wolf said.

Wolf pointed out that a number of other scandals involving the Obama Administration will require aggressive oversight by Congress, specifically citing the difficulty in getting answers on the IRS scandal, which only deals with one agency.

“The Benghazi case cuts across multiple national security agencies and the White House involving sensitive information, thereby putting it in a league of its own among the various scandal investigations,” Wolf said.

“This is all the more reason to take the best of the best under a Select Committee to build, at no additional cost, on the work that has already been done through regular order,” he wrote.  “There would be no need to start over, as some have tried to say.  Nor would there be additional costs – the resolution specifically states that we should use existing resources.”

Wolf reminded Boehner that there are just five legislative weeks before the one-year anniversary of the attacks in September.

“We must not wait until the second year of this investigation to commit the focused resources of a Select Committee in pursuit of government accountability and, ultimately, truth,” he wrote.  “Sources are disappearing and leads are drying up.  The Select Committee legislation needs to be swiftly brought to the floor for a vote, so the House can hold public hearings over the summer … and attempt to provide a final public report by the first anniversary of this attack.”

Wolf concluded his letter by quoting from a recent Wall Street Journal editorial: “Let Benghazi’s chips fall.  The House should appoint a Select Committee.”

Wolf’s measure to create a Select Committee has been endorsed by the parents of some of the victims, more than 700 retired Special Operations officials, by the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Associations, which represents the State Department security officers who were on the ground in Benghazi, and by the Wall Street Journal, as well as other publications.  For a full list of endorsements, click here.

For more on Wolf’s work on Benghazi, click here.

The full text of the letter is below.

###

The Honorable John A. Boehner
Speaker of the House
U.S. House of Representatives
H-232 The Capitol

Dear Mr. Speaker:

The American people are losing confidence in their government.  The tragedy in Benghazi, along with a stream of recent controversies, including the IRS and the Justice Department’s targeting of reporters at Fox News and the Associated Press, as well as the ambiguity about recently disclosed programs at the National Security Agency, are eroding public trust in the institutions of government.

This diminishing of public confidence isn’t limited to the Executive Branch.  Congress’ approval rating is at an all-time low.  A June 14 National Journal article said, “Nearly 8 in 10 Americans told Gallup pollsters this month that they disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job, the 45th consecutive month that more than two-thirds of Americans graded Congress poorly.  The problem isn’t as much what Congress is doing as what it is not getting done.” I believe most Americans would agree that one of the items “not getting done” is a thorough, comprehensive and ultimately definitive investigation into the response to the Benghazi attacks.

That is why I have been pushing so hard for a bipartisan Select Committee to investigate the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi.  The response among most of our colleagues and the public has been overwhelming.  Since January, when I proposed including the Select Committee in the House Rules package for the 113th Congress, more than two-thirds of House Republicans – a majority of the majority – have cosponsored my bill, H. Res. 36, to create the Select Committee. Since that time, there has been a growing chorus of support.  The bill has been endorsed by the parents of some of the victims, by more than 700 retired Special Operations officials, by the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Associations, which represents the State Department security officers who were on the ground in Benghazi, and by The Wall Street Journal editorial page in addition to dozens of other commentators, former diplomats and military officials.  I believe this broad support speaks to the public’s hunger for clear answers on Benghazi – answers which to date have been elusive.  That is why more than nine months after the devastating attack, my resolution continues to add new cosponsors; it now has the support of 158 Republicans.

I recognize that “regular order” has made some progress over the last six months; most notably Chairman Issa’s constructive hearing with several State Department whistleblowers.  I also understand that Chairman McKeon has planned a hearing with Gen. Carter Ham for next week, but like so many of these hearings, this, too, will be held behind closed doors.  There is no reason Gen. Ham’s testimony shouldn’t be public.  This latest classified hearing is symptomatic of a broader problem with respect to the current congressional approach to investigating Benghazi: Too much has been done in a piecemeal fashion, behind closed doors, thereby robbing the American people of clear answers to important questions surrounding the murder of a sitting U.S. ambassador and three civilian employees, and the grievous injury of untold others.

Deuteronomy 16:20 tells us, “Justice, justice shalt thou pursue.” As we quietly marked the nine-month anniversary of the attacks last week, I know many people wondered if there will ever be any clear resolution to this investigation, let alone justice.

Writing about Benghazi in The Wall Street Journal last month, columnist Peggy Noonan pondered, “Was all this incompetence? Or was it politics disguised as the fog of war? Who called these shots and made these decisions? Who decided to do nothing?”

More than nine months later, the Congress still cannot answer these questions.  No one has been held responsible for the failure to respond that night.  A few mid-level career officials have been penalized, but ultimately those senior officials who were in the position to actually say the buck stops here – cabinet secretaries and political appointees at the White House, State Department, Defense Department and CIA – have emerged unscathed, and in some cases, seemingly the better for it.

Consider that former Secretary Clinton now earns hundreds of thousands of dollars for every speech she gives, former Secretary Panetta just signed a $3 million book deal and former CIA Director Petraeus recently joined an investment firm in New York.

Similarly, several other administration officials associated with the Benghazi response to the attack have been promoted.  Ambassador Rice has been promoted to national security advisor, then-deputy national security advisor Dennis McDonough has been promoted to White House chief of staff, and then-White House chief of staff Jack Lew has been promoted to Treasury Secretary.

If all responsible for the government’s response to Benghazi have been rewarded with lucrative contracts or promotions within the administration, what signal does this send to the American people about accountability?

Mr. Speaker, we’re fast approaching the Independence Day recess.  We will only have four legislative weeks in July before the August recess.  When we return in September we will be just days away from the one-year anniversary of the Benghazi attacks.

We must not wait until the second year of this investigation to commit the focused resources of a Select Committee in pursuit of government accountability and, ultimately, truth.  Sources are disappearing and leads are drying up.  The Select Committee legislation needs to be swiftly brought to the floor for a vote, so the House can hold public hearings over the summer – focused exclusively on the core issues about why no assistance was sent to the Americans under fire in Benghazi – and attempt to provide a final public report by the first anniversary of this attack.

You have a number of committee chairman who would be excellent at leading the Select Committee.  Chairman Issa has shown in his hearing with the State Department whistleblowers that he would be a good chairman.  Similarly, Chairman Royce, Chairman Rogers, Chairman McKeon, Chairman Goodlatte and Chairman McCaul are all strong leaders and would ably chair a Select Committee.  Further, we have a lot of talent in our conference to draw from.  There are a number of newer members who have proven themselves to be capable and insightful investigators.  You could consider appointing some of them to the Select Committee, too.

As I mentioned earlier, a number of new controversies involving the Obama Administration have surfaced in recent months that demand the committees’ full attention.  This is all the more reason to take the best of the best under a Select Committee to build, at no additional cost, on the work that has already been done through regular order.  There would be no need to start over, as some have tried to say.  Nor would there be additional costs – the resolution specifically states that we should use existing resources.

We owe it to the families of the Benghazi victims and to the not yet named survivors, whose lives will be indelibly marked by the wounds they endured protecting the annex, to honor their sacrifice and their service.  Harkening back to Deuteronomy, we must pursue justice on their behalf, recognizing their heroism and an accounting for the failures in leadership that left them exposed and vulnerable.  We also owe it to the men and women who serve our country now and in the years ahead to restore confidence that if they come under fire, we will make every effort to come to their defense.  For these reasons alone, we should not give up on this issue.

I am afraid that if we don’t move on a Select Committee, we’ll never find out the truth.  Just as The Wall Street Journal editorial page in May said, “A Select Committee is the only means available now for the U.S. political system to extricate itself from the labyrinth called Benghazi.”

The need for a Select Committee is underscored by the difficulty we’re having getting answers on a number of current investigations.  Consider that in the case of the IRS scandal, both the Ways and Means Committee and the Oversight and Government Reform Committee have opened up independent investigations that will likely take significant resources for months to come.  It is important that they investigate, and they are doing an excellent job.  But despite these efforts, much remains unknown about the IRS scandal – which involves only a single agency and does not have to deal with sensitive, classified information – including whether the political targeting of groups was confined to the Cincinnati office or was actually directed by Washington.  We still don’t have a clear answer.

In comparison, the Benghazi case cuts across multiple national security agencies and the White House involving sensitive information, thereby putting it in a league of its own among the various scandal investigations.   Also of great interest is the increasing concern that the FBI is being used by various agencies as an excuse to avoid answering questions on Benghazi, especially as this investigation drags on longer.  The American people should be troubled by the anemic pace of the FBI’s investigation of those responsible for the attacks.  Nearly a year later, the U.S. does not have a single suspect in custody.  The Tunisians released one suspect earlier this year, after making the FBI wait for months to interview him. Another person of significant interest has been held since last fall by the Egyptian government, a recipient of billions of dollars in U.S. foreign assistance, but they will not allow the FBI to interview him.

Even more concerning, last month the Associated Press reported that the FBI allegedly has identified five men believed to be responsible for the Benghazi attacks, but won’t detain them because it does not have enough evidence to try them in a U.S. civilian court.  For the U.S. to know the identities and possible locations of those who killed four Americans and fail to take action immediately because the administration insists on an Article III trial is shameful.  For these reasons, any worthwhile Benghazi investigation must also consider how the Justice Department has managed its investigation into the terrorists over the last year.

Despite these serious issues, much of the House’s investigation on Benghazi to date has centered on secondary discussions like the “talking points” and the Accountability Review Board process, to the detriment of more fundamental issues like the administration’s apparent abandonment of Americans who were facing a deadly siege.

On the issues that matter most, there is nothing that happened that deadly night in Benghazi that can’t be addressed in a public hearing and accompanying report of findings.  There are ways to protect classified information while still allowing the public to learn what actually happened that night.  There is no legitimate reason that the public shouldn’t know what calls for help were made from Benghazi, who received those calls and, most importantly, why no support was sent to the Americans under siege.  There is no reason that officials in the chain of command at various agencies shouldn’t be asked to answer publicly why no effort was made to rescue those in Benghazi.

It has been repeated often that there were no military assets in the region that could have responded in time to stop the initial attack on the consulate.  But when the attacks started, no one could have known whether it would last eight minutes, eight hours, or eight days, or longer.  It appears that not even a single plane was scrambled.  We can’t help but draw the deeply troubling conclusion that within minutes of the attack, the decision was made that the battle was lost and the Americans left there would be collateral damage in the greater War on Terror.

If our government never sent a plane to help defend the annex, it begs the question: Did they even send an American plane to get the bodies and survivors out of Benghazi after the attacks?  There’s no reason the public should not learn the answer to this question, too.

As Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin (ret.) and other former Special Operations officials have noted, a bedrock American ethos – that our nation never leaves anyone behind on the battlefield – was shattered that night in Benghazi.  No one came to rescue them despite pleas for help.  More than nine months later, too many questions remain unanswered: Who took the call that night? What were they told and how did they respond?  Why was the determination made not to intervene in a horrific assault on a U.S. diplomat and his brave support staff?

In the dangerous world in which we live there are undoubtedly hard fought battles where American blood is spilt, and lives lost – our nation is painfully aware of this reality through our experience in distant lands like Iraq and Afghanistan.  But Benghazi was an unanticipated battlefield where terrorist elements seized on the occasion of the anniversary of 9/11 to strike at an American outpost abroad.  They did so with deadly consequence, and their attack was met with silence from a superpower.

This is a black mark on our national history.  It emboldens others with similarly gruesome aims.  It leaves vulnerable Americans serving in dangerous posts.  And ultimately, the lack of transparency from the various government agencies and entities involved undermines the faith of the American people in their government.

This is a less obvious “casualty” of that dark day, but it has lasting implications which we as public servants know well.  For in a functioning democracy there is a sacred trust that must exist between the government and the governed and that trust is precipitously eroding.

As the Wall Street Journal noted in its May editorial, “Let Benghazi’s chips fall.  The House should appoint a Select Committee.”

Best wishes.

Sincerely,

Frank R. Wolf
Member of Congress

The Women of Benghazigate

Suddenly, it seems we have broken through the most effective executive branch cover-up and complicit media blackout in memory.  Among the many recent revelations is one that has gone unnoted:  The prominent role played by women in the Obama administration’s: policy-making that led up to the jihadist attack in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012; its handling of the crisis; and its subsequent, scandalous damage-control operation.

Since, as they say, you can’t tell the players without a scorecard, here’s a short guide to the Women of Benghazigate, whose contributions to one aspect or another of this affair have become public knowledge – thanks, in particular, to testimony from three whistleblowers before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee last week:

  • First, there is Hillary Clinton, who was Secretary of State at the time. We now know she was personally responsible for at least some of the decisions that left personnel in the “special mission compound” in Benghazi highly vulnerable to attack.  Her whereabouts and activities are unaccounted for – like those of President Obama – during most of the seven-plus hours in which jihadists systematically assaulted first that facility and then a nearby CIA “annex.”  And then, the next day, she knowingly deceived the public about what precipitated the attack, blaming an internet video.
  • The poster child for the Benghazigate cover-up is UN Ambassador Susan Rice.  She was chosen to make the rounds of all five network Sunday morning news programs on September 16, 2012.  She reinforced the false narrative that Mrs. Clinton first pushed out publicly four days before in a joint Rose Garden appearance with President Obama.
  • State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland was evidently among those involved in massaging twelve different versions of “talking points” upon which intelligence officials drew to misleadingly brief the Congress.  Amb. Rice also used such guidance to justify the fraud that YouTube, not jihad, was responsible for the violence in Benghazi.
  • Mrs. Clinton’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, was formerly in charge of managing so-called “bimbo eruptions” during Bill Clinton’s 1992 run for the White House and administration.  According to one of last week’s witnesses, Gregory Hicks – who became the Chief of Mission in Libya after his boss, Ambassador Chris Stevens, was murdered on that fateful night, Ms. Mills has lately been suppressing equally unwanted eruptions concerning Benghazigate.  She upbraided the diplomat for challenging the party line about what happened then and thereafter.  She also reportedly sought to interfere with a congressional investigation into the matter.
  •  Mr. Hicks testified that the acting assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs, Beth Jones, delivered her own, “blistering critique” of his management style after he asked “why the ambassador said there was a demonstration when the embassy reported there was an attack?”  Mr. Hicks believes he was demoted in retaliation for posing such unwelcome questions.

Curiously, the truth that has finally begun to emerge has yet to shed light on the involvement of two other women who almost certainly were players before, during and after the Benghazi attacks.

The first is Valerie Jarrett.  She is President Obama’s longtime consigliere.  Such is her relationship with him and the First Lady that she is permitted to involve herself in virtually all portfolios, including the most sensitive foreign affairs and national security ones.

That would surely be the case in this instance in light of Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan’s insightful observation:

“The Obama White House sees every event as a political event….Because of that, it could not tolerate the idea that the armed assault on the Benghazi consulate was a premeditated act of Islamist terrorism. That would carry a whole world of unhappy political implications, and demand certain actions. And the American presidential election was only eight weeks away. They wanted this problem to go away, or at least to bleed the meaning from it.”

To paraphrase Senator Howard Baker’s famous questions from an earlier congressional investigation of a presidential cover-up called Watergate: What did Ms. Jarrett do, and when did she do it?

Then, there’s Mrs. Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin.  It strains credulity that Ms. Abedin would not be involved in this crisis, given the important role she has played in Mrs. Clinton’s world for over twelve years. As the Washington Post observed in 2007 – long before Hillary became America’s top diplomat: “Abedin…is one of Clinton’s most-trusted advisers on the Middle East….When Clinton hosts meetings on the region, Abedin’s advice is always sought.”

What was Huma Abedin’s advice when her boss responded to the proverbial “3 o’clock call” on the evening of September 11, 2012?  For that matter, in light of Huma’s longstanding and well-documented ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, we need to know what advice Ms. Abedin had been giving the Secretary of State about helping the Brotherhood and its fellow Islamists topple relatively friendly regimes throughout the Mideast and North Africa, including Muammar Qaddafi’s in Libya.

Of course, there are plenty of men implicated in the run-up to, events of and efforts to conceal the Benghazi scandal, starting with the President himself.  Their contributions to this debacle require thorough investigation.  But so do those of the Women of Benghazigate, including those peculiarly unimplicated to date: Valerie Jarrett and Huma Abedin.

The Istanbul Process, The Missing Piece of the Filmmaker Puzzle

It was heartening to see Rich Lowry in Politico making note of the one largely unspoken element of the Benghazi Cover-up which is going largely unreported. Namely that a man sits in prison because those in the State Department apparently chose to eliminate terrorism from the talking point associated with the Benghazi aftermath. Lowry notes:

Instead, Nakoula ended up the patsy in a tawdry coverup. The State Department Operations Center reported to Washington immediately that the the Benghazi attack was an assault carried out by Islamic militants. The falsehoods about Benghazi weren’t a product of the fog of war; they were the product of the fog of politics. Desperate to minimize the attack and deflect responsibility, Team Obama evaded and obfuscated.

Over at the blog Popehat, Ken White takes exception to those who have defended the “Innocence of Muslims” trailer maker, writing:

Is Nakoula in federal prison because he made the “Innocence of Muslims” video? Superficially, perhaps, in the sense that his behavior may have escaped detection if he hadn’t become famous. It’s even possible that someone in the Obama Administration tipped off — or pressured — the Probation Office about his conduct. (If that’s what happened, there ought to be a Congressional investigation.) But Nakoula’s conduct is the sort that would absolutely be pursued if detected by his Probation Office and would routinely result in a revocation of supervised release and a return to federal prison. People saying otherwise don’t know what they are talking about or don’t care, or both.
Ken notes that most of us who have been vocal about Nakoula’s imprisonment aren’t legal experts and haven’t spent time working in the parole system.

Fair enough.

But both Rich and Ken actually manage to miss the key factor, without which Nakoula’s arrest is indeed perhaps unremarkable. And that factor revolves around  UN resolution 16/18,  The Istanbul Process, and the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (formerly Conference). For those who think this is an irrelevant distraction to the Benghazi discussion:

It goes to motive, your honor.  (I’m not a lawyer, but I heard that in a TV courtroom once.)

UN Resolution 16/18 was jointly introduced by the United States and Egypt*. At the time some argued that it was a walk back from previous OIC “Defamation of Islam” resolutions. However, the OIC made clear afterwards it considered the resolution a resounding success, and indeed, that it represented a step forward in their effort to effectively criminalize “Islamophobia.” The Resolution specifically calls for “Adopting measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief;”.

Worse still, by participating with the OIC in the Istanbul Process to implement the resolution, the United States has effectively done the same. Speaking about the Istanbul Process, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said:

“we are focused on promoting interfaith education and collaboration, enforcing anti-discrimination laws, protecting the rights of all people to worship as they choose and to use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor,” she said. (emphasis added)

This adds new relevance to Clinton’s statement to Charles Woods about seeing the filmmaker punished. The filmmaker was not just a useful patsy. Secretary Clinton was essentially already on record calling for men like Nakoula to face legal consequences,  even before she, or anyone else, knew who he was.

The arrest of “Innocence” Filmmaker has to be viewed within the context of other such events where this Administration has intervened against those who have criticized Islam. Intimidating phone calls from top military officials to troublesome pastors. The punishment of soldiers who dispose of the Quran, despite that no violation of the USMJ has occurred. Previously, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer raised the possibility that when it comes to actions that may offend Muslims, it’s like crying ‘fire’ in a theater.  The argument that one should not be free to criticize Islam because the result may be violence was already being built before Benghazi, exactly as the OIC intended.

And before Clinton’s words calling for Nakoula’s arrest were revealed by Charles Woods, MSNBC commentators called for Nakoula to be tried for murder.  The ground work for such a demand had already been laid.

Far from being irrelevant, the free speech issue is central to the question of what happened in Benghazi and why it was covered up.

Even if its correct to say that Nakoula ought to have been brought in for parole violations even if Benghazi had never occurred, the fact remains that punishing people like him, whether its through existing legal tools, where ever available, or extralegal tools, such as “peer-pressure and shaming”  is now effectively U.S. policy, because of this administration’s decision to pursue Resolution 16/18 and the Istanbul Process.

And that makes the filmmaker’s arrest extremely political.
*Correction: Resolution 16/18 was submitted by Pakistan on behalf of the OIC in 2011. The U.S-Egypt resolution, submitted in 2009 played a role in reviving the OIC’s efforts which had faced previous setback from Western nations at the U.N and paved the way for 16/18.

Moment of Truth for Benghazigate?

The dam seems to be breaking on the nearly eight-months-long cover-up concerning the deadly jihadist attack on Americans and their facilities in Benghazi, Libya.

Here are some the reasons to believe the moment of truth – or, more accurately, the moment for truth – is finally arriving:  The House Government Oversight Committee is scheduled to hold a potentially explosive hearing on Wednesday. The Weekly Standard has obtained an official timeline showing White House and State Department skullduggery with respect to the administration’s very first briefing to Congress that suggests a deliberate effort to mislead the public and their elected representatives.

In addition, there are now indications that – despite reported intimidation by the Obama administration – long-silenced witnesses are determined to reveal what they know.  And, at the instigation of Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA) and with encouragement from over 700 Special Operations veterans and family members of those lost in Benghazi, some 135 legislators in the House of Representatives and three U.S. Senators are calling for a special investigatory committee. (To join the appeal for such a select committee with full subpoena powers, visit www.EndtheCoverup.com.)

To be sure, Team Obama seems as determined as ever to defy efforts to ferret out the truth about Benghazi.  In this they have been aided by the failure of Congress to date to mount a single, concerted investigation of what led up to, happened during and took place after the attack.

Instead, no fewer than five different committees in the House alone have conducted hearings into one aspect or another of the scandal.  Their lackluster performance over the past seven months is in evidence in a “progress report” jointly issued two weeks ago by their chairmen.  It principally shows that a host of questions remain unanswered.  All other things being equal, chances are they will continue to be.

It is time to consolidate and redouble the investigation.  Rep. Wolf proposes in House Resolution 36 to do so by forming a new, temporary committee whose members would include the chairmen and ranking members of the five oversight committees so as to ensure their expertise is brought to bear and their jurisdictions respected.

These are among the most pregnant questions such a select committee needs to address without further delay:

  • Where was the President and what was he doing?  We know that President Obama was apprised in person of the attack on the State Department’s so-called “special mission facility” in Benghazi at its outset by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman General Martin Dempsey.  Evidently, he did not order a rescue operation on that occasion, or thereafter. In fact, Messrs. Panetta and Dempsey testified that they had no further contact with the Commander-in-Chief after their meeting.  As a practical matter, since only he can order the U.S. military to engage in cross-border operations, none was mounted – either to aid those in the compound or the near-by CIA “annex” that came under attack some seven hours after the former was sacked, resulting in the murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens and one other diplomat.  We need to know why not, and what the President was doing instead of his first responsibility: protecting Americans.
  • Where was the then-Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and why did she fail to intervene on behalf of her subordinates in harm’s way?  Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey also testified that they had no contact with Mrs. Clinton throughout that long and fateful night after the initial briefing to the President.  The Joint Chiefs Chairman expressed incredulity that she was unaware of the perilous security situation in which her folks had been placed – for reasons that are still not clear – on a day al Qaeda has made particularly perilous for all Americans and in a place Amb. Stevens and his staff had repeatedly warned was extremely dangerous.  In short, when Hillary’s “3 o’clock” call came in, where was she and why did she fail to answer it?  She may continue to insist “What difference does it really make now?”  But the difference the truth makes now is that it bears directly on her judgment, character and performance in high office.  Americans are entitled to the truth on all those scores before they are asked to elect her as our next Commander-in-Chief.
  • Will Americans in harm’s way be treated with similar indifference in the future?  The 700 Special Operators noted in their letter to Members of Congress that no man left behind is a principle held dear by our military men and women.  Throughout their careers, these warriors and their comrades trained and prepared for, and often executed, rescue missions and they are determined to find out why none was undertaken this time.  They are right to insist that those in uniform around the world and State Department personnel need to know whether we will be abandoned in the future by our government in the event we are taken hostage or otherwise imperiled?  If so, it will be open season on every one of us.

Many other questions occur, and they will doubtless be addressed if and when the House leadership decides to adopt an institutional approach with a chance of overcoming executive branch defiance and perfidy.  The fact that the moment for truth has been delayed this long is a scandal in its own right.  It must not be deferred further.