Benghazi Hearings Needed Sam Irvin

Where is Senator Sam Irvin when you need him? The Watergate (where no one died) hearings brought the Nixon Presidency to an end when Senator Sam Irvin asked the simple question, “What did the President know and when did he know it?” Contrast that simple question with the hours of questions by Republicans and talking point recitations by the Democrats during the Bengazhi hearings. Sadly the “elephant in the room” question was never asked. Was the fear of reprisal from the Obama White House so great that not one Senator had the testicular strength to simply ask “Where was the President during the Bengazhi terror attacks and what were his responses?” Despite the fact that the main needed question was never asked, or answered, several truths did emerge from the hearings that require further investigation. Both the authors of the Accountability Review Board Report, and key administration officials including Secretary Clinton and Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills need to be placed under oath again in front of the committee.

Despite the liberal establishment efforts to frame the hearing as:

1. Republicans on a political witch hunt

2. Nothing new was learned

3. No major questions remain

4. There was nothing that could have been done to save lives

5. The ARB Report is the final word

6. Bengazhi happened a long time ago

several revelations are damning to the Obama Administration and the Clinton State Department.

To me the most damning allegation was against Secretary Clinton’s Chief of Staff Mills (one must assume acting at the behest of the Secretary) who instructed witness Gregory Hicks not to speak to Congressional Investigators after Hicks voiced objections to the administration’s inaccurate talking points. Understand Mr. Hicks is a:

1. Career diplomat with 22 years of service under three different administrations.

2. Has an impeccable record of service.

3. Was praised by Obama & Clinton for his performance during Benghazi attacks.

The praise of his performance came before he would not fall in line with the administrations “internet video” lie that was a direct contradiction of the facts and essentially called the President of Libya a liar. When Mr. Hicks would not go along with the lies, the State Department sent an attorney to sit in on all his meetings with Congress and Beth Jones launched into an attack of Hicks’ leadership.  He has been subsequently demoted. If that is not an attempted Cover-up then a new definition of Cover-up needs to be written.

Another damning fact is that an armed US force in Tripoli, which could have been to Benghazi within an hour, was told to stand down twice. Why? We now know that the troops were furious that they were not employed. It raises three questions:

1. Who ordered the stand down?

2. Did the order come from the Commander-In-Chief? (that is Obama for the uniformed voter)

3. When was the stand down order given and why?

The Administration’s excuse that a military response could have not arrived in time to make a difference begs the question, how did they know how long the attack would go on? Additionally the Obama Administration did not seek permission from the Libyan government to fly any aircraft into Libyan airspace. How did they know that aircraft flying over the scene would not have had a positive effect. Why did they not send troops that were available? Doing neither buoys the fact that Obama never had a desire to rush help to Benghazi. What ever happened to America’s Commander-In-Chief protecting Americans? When will President Obama be required to answer these questions. Don’t hold your breath expecting the sycophant media to ask.

The Democrats on the committee repeated the talking points (now proven false) asked leading questions, attempted to smear witnesses and provided clowning facial expressions of disgust rather than seeking the truth. The Democrats embarrassed themselves by attempting to blame reduced funding, which under previous testimony supported by the Clinton State Department and the ARB had absolutely nothing to do with the inadequate security presence in Benghazi. What were Democrats doing going after proven lies and deceptions? It was all they had since the truth goes to the incompetence of their Commander-in-Chief and the Secretary of State.

More embarrassing to the Democrats were their attempts to cast doubt on the credibility of the witnesses. They tried to cast doubt on the credibility of witness Mark Thompson by stating that he had declined to participate in the ARB investigation. Thompson took little time to correct the record stating that he had offered his service to the investigators and it was the ARB that did not have him testify. Perhaps this is an early example of the ARB working to protect the Obama narrative rather than seeking the truth. The Democrats also tried to proclaim that the hearings were a Republican witch-hunt because the leaders of the ARB investigation were not invited to participate in the hearings. Embarrassment number two as Chairman Issa explicitly invited them, in writing, to participate. They chose not to participate, most likely because much of their ARB has been proven to be incorrect. Every attempt the Democrats made to diminish the hearing blew up in their faces.

In addition to the new factual information provided by the witnesses, their response to Secretary Clinton was precise and emotional. During her Congressional testimony on Benghazi, Sec. Clinton pounded her fists and defiantly asked, “what difference does it make?” Both witness Eric Nordstrom and Hicks answered the question. Hicks precisely explained how the false talking points developed a rift between the US and Libyan governments. It was the main reason the FBI was not allowed to investigate on the ground for weeks. Nordstrom was more emotional and nailed the Secretary with it matters because “we lost friends; the truth matters.” 

While new facts were revealed, the fact that the media continues to protect Obama and Clinton makes one wonder if this hearing will be the last. If future hearings are, as they should be, scheduled, we have to hope that there is a Republican Sam Irvin somewhere on the committee to ask “Where was the President during the Benghazi terror attacks and what were his responses?”

Related articles

• Hicks: Clinton Confidante Was ‘Very Upset’ Over My Cooperating in Investigation
• Colleagues of Hillary ‘fixer’ Cheryl Mills defend her honor against ‘lunatic GOP congressman’
• Benghazi Leads to Clinton Confidant from Investigations Past
• Diplomat claims US special forces told to stand down in Benghazi