Why is there a need for additional hearings into what happened at Benghazi?
Why indeed? What difference does it really make? to quote Mrs. Clinton, the former Secretary of State.
After countless hours and hearings into the events of September 11, 2012 what has the republican congress discovered? Do we have any idea who told the military to stand down? Do we have any idea who from the state department refused requests for increased military reinforcements?
No we do not! And why not? What has been going on all these months?
As congress suits up for a select committee investigation of the events that occurred at the American diplomatic mission compound in Benghazi Libya, September 11, 2012, it would do well for everyone to step back for a moment and consider the grave state of affairs of our dysfunctional federal government.
Congressional hearings, to date, have been a disappointment due to the political nature, posturing and speech making at the hearings.
Democrats seem to want only to defend the president's actions, or lack thereof, and have behaved disgracefully in displaying a level of callousness and disinterest that borders on gross indifference to the deaths of four Americans, one of whom was the United States' ambassador. Now they threaten to boycott further hearings into the matter on the pathetic grounds that everything that has to be learned has been learned? Really? Can any member of the Democratic caucus answer the two questions posed above?
Republicans, for their part, not only missed the mark in their questioning, but they failed to call the most important people, the decision makers at the top, to ask what they knew, when they knew it, and who was ultimately responsible for the sorry events that occurred. They question and they posture and they always seem to stop just short of calling the people who they most need to hear from. Why?
I can't be the only American who has followed these hearings and asked over and again why the decision makers have not been called. Why have the top generals been spared? Why have key decision-makers in the White House and state department not been subpoenaed to appear and testify? Why was Hillary Clinton allowed to testify without first taking the oath?
For its part the media has ignored the congressional hearings and actively downplayed both the admissions and omissions that trouble so many of the rest of us.
It's time to set the record straight:
The major issue is not about who changed the talking points, or where the president was while the battle for the U.S. diplomatic mission was ongoing, or who denied repeated requests for increased security at American missions and diplomatic offices in Libya months before the attacks, nor is it about why the information has been so slow in coming from the administration, nor is it about who selected Ambassador Susan Rice as the lead for the Sunday TV news shows, when she might have been the last person who knew what happened. And it certainly is not about the anti-Islamic video that allegedly set off demonstrations.
All of those questions, and more, are important, and they must be answered but they are not what is going to stir the blood of the American public. Answering any or all of the above questions leaves blank an answer to the most important, and only question that really matters.
The Democrats don't want to know the answer to that question. Fine!
The rest of us, however, deserve an answer about who let these brave Americans die. Who, in the American government, when Americans were engaged in deadly combat for their lives and calling for help from their superiors, denied them help? Who gave the stand down order and why?
In all the hearings and endless hours wasted on them and money spent, an ostensibly intelligent congress has yet to drive the above question home to the person or persons who denied the Americans help when they called repeatedly for it?
Democrats may scoff at the idea of more hearings and ask, what difference it makes? The major media can ignore the story as they have. There is no "there" there they whisper to each other and hope the rest of us can't read their lips. Maybe in the good old days when liberals controlled the majority of the media that was the case, but that is not the case today. Today, millions of Americans have found a way around the major media. The news is everywhere -- on the Internet, talk radio, FOX News and a growing conservative press.
Every American with a son, a daughter, a father, a mother, a husband a wife, a sister or a brother in uniform deserves to know who betrayed the trust of their loved ones. Who in the administration or military said, no, when calls were made for assistance? Someone in the Obama administration had to have the final say. Someone is responsible. And Americans have a right to know who that person is, why they have not been fired, and what, if anything, has been changed to ensure that this kind of disaster never occurs again.
What does it matter? It matters because it can happen again and we and the world need to know that when American interests and lives are at stake and involved, America will act swiftly and decisively to protect those interests. The Democrats may scoff at this notion, but it is doubtful the American public will be so sanguine if they view this Democratic betrayal of trust as the treacherous act is was and is.
Make no mistake about it, the Democrats will try to divert the debate away from getting an answer to this and all other questions on Benghazi, just as they have stonewalled on the issue of lax immigration enforcement, fast and furious and the IRS abuses. They will argue that this is old news and that with all the issues facing America today, wasting time on an issue that goes back almost two years instead of looking forward to solve problems facing us, is nothing more than crass politics engaged in solely to embarrass the president.
Republicans cannot allow this to happen. The first question that needs to be asked at the very first select committee hearing is a question to each member on both sides of the aisle: Do you know who in the administration gave the stand down order when Americans were asking for backup?
Nobody knows the answer to that question and because the answer is blank, the select committee's existence is necessary.
As it stands right now, nobody knows what America's foreign policy will be should another embassy or diplomatic mission come under assault. That is why this is important. We have to know; the world has to know that America will never be this sanguine again. The world must know, we must know, that actions have consequences and that the full force and might of the United States stands behind every ambassador, employee, foreign officer, diplomatic military or business envoy in a foreign country. They must know with certainty, that every office will be protected, every security contingent will have clear and unmistakable orders to protect that which is Americas, and that those serving abroad have the assurance that America stands behind them and is prepared to act on the shortest of notice to rescue and defend them so long as they serve.