Like most Americans, I have not interviewed dozens of witnesses or spent $4.7 million dollars trying to get to find out about the Benghazi affair. However, our questions are pretty simple:
Who refused to furnish the additional security resources for the Libyan embassy and consulate which were requested by the distinguished American Ambassador in 600 dispatches? What was the basis of these refusals?
Why did those requests never come to the attention of the Secretary of State who was responsible by law for diplomates’ security?
Why did the Secretary of State send the National Security Adviser, who had no connection with the Embassy, to speak to the nation about the Benghazi tragedy?
Why did the secretary, the president and the National Security Advisor lie repeatedly about the cause of the attack by saying that it was really incited by an obscure American video?
With your recent Congressional testimony in mind, here is what we have concluded so far:
First, apparently Under Secretary for Management Patrick F. Kennedy was the person who authorized the repeated refusals of Ambassador Christopher Stevens’ 600 requests for increased security. According to your testimony, Madame Secretary, the “security professionals” never felt compelled to raise the issue to you, even though you were responsible by law for their decisions. Not to mention that you were supposedly a great friend of Chris Stevens (with whom you had no communication over the many months between his appointment and his death).
We have not heard from Mr. Kennedy about why he failed to make you aware of the security situation in the Libyan embassy, if indeed that is the truth of the matter. Why he pursued his stonewalling of the ambassador’s requests, especially after the Red Cross and the British had left Benghazi, and after 16o reported security breaches in Benghazi has never been made public. His judgement under these circumstances was fatally flawed.
The inescapable conclusion from what we have been told is that your subordinate was criminally negligent and that you as his manager are guilty of gross negligence. Either you are incompetent as a public servant – which seems hard to believe – or you have no concept of or interest in national security. Either of these reasons disqualifies you for the presidency of the United States of America.
Then there is the issue of taking public responsibility. There seems to be no reason why the person responsible for the Department of State should hide behind a presidential staff member, however ambitious Susan Rice may be, when presenting the official explanation for this tragedy to the press. One can only conclude that you were already trying to distance yourself from the entire matter from the first day — a strategy which is still working today.
And then you all lied about the causes to the American public! Repeatedly and in the most delicate of circumstances, when the bodies of the slain were returned to their families! What kind of a person does that? Not the kind of person we want for President. Not even the kind of person most of us would want for a friend. You have often said that you “take responsibility” for Benghazi. Not only did you not resign because of your malfeasance and your mendacity, you haven’t even admitted your mistakes let alone apologized. You haven’t taken responsibility – all you have taken is a coward’s way out.
There has always been the question of what you were trying to hide by these devious methods, especially in view of the temporary value of such a story. The speculation has been that the president recognized the potential of this incident to cause him to lose his re-election. That may be. It now appears, however, that your personal reason was to hide your part in the deaths of four patriotic Americans, the enormity of which you correctly anticipated might destroy your political career.
Based on your part in the Benghazi incident, you should be living in disgrace rather than basking in a presidential campaign.
That, Madame Secretary, is the difference the Benghazi incident makes.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.