THINK PROGRESS
The “whistleblowers” at today’s House Oversight Committee hearing on what really happened in Benghazi, Libya last September were supposed to break the dam that would lead to President Obama’s eventual downfall,
in the eyes of conservatives. Instead, these witness actually served to
debunk several theories that the right-wing has pushed on Benghazi,
leaving the hearing a fizzle for the GOP:
1. F-16s could have been sent to Benghazi
Part of the prevailing theory surrounding the events the night of the
Benghazi attacks is that the Obama administration did not do enough
militarily to respond to the crisis. Gregory Hicks — a Foreign Service
Officer and the former Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in
Libya — claimed during his pre-hearing testimony that fighter jets could have been flown over Benghazi, preventing the second wave of the attack from occurring.
Ranking Member Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) questioned that statement,
asking Hicks whether he disagreed with Chairman of the Joint Chief of
Staff Gen Martin Dempsey’s assessment that no air assets were in range
the night of the attack. Hicks didn’t disagree, saying he was “speaking
from [his] perspective” and what “veteran Libyan revolutionaries” told
him, rather than Pentagon assessments.
2. Hillary Clinton signed cables denying additional security to Benghazi
House Republicans came to the conclusion in their interim report
on Benghazi that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lied to them
about what she knew and when during her testimony this January. This
includes her statement that at no time was she aware of requests for
additional security at the diplomatic facility in Benghazi prior to the
attack.
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) used her time to take issue with this claim, asking all three witnesses about standard protocol
for cables leaving the State Department. All three agreed with Maloney,
that the Secretary of State’s name is placed at the bottom of all
outgoing cables and telegrams from Foggy Bottom, whether the Secretary
has viewed them or not, shooting down the GOP claim.
3. A Special Forces Team that could have saved lives was told to stand down
One of the most shocking reveals in the lead-up to today’s hearing was that a team of Special Forces in Tripoli were told not to deploy to Benghazi during the attack. That decision has led to an uproar on the right, including claims of dereliction of duty towards Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey for not taking actions that could have saved lives.
During questioning, Hicks confirmed that the team was ready to be
deployed — not to join the fighting at the CIA annex — but “to secure
the airport for the withdrawal of our personnel from Benghazi after the
mortar attack.” Hicks also confirmed that it was the second such team to
be readied for deployment, with the first having proceeded to Benghazi
earlier. Despite the second team not deploying, the staff was all evacuated first to Tripoli, then to Germany, within 18 hours of the attack taking place.
4. The State Department’s Accountability Review Board isn’t legitimate
Republicans have been attacking the State Department’s official
in-house review of the shortcomings seen before, during, and after the
assault in Benghazi. That criticism prompted House Republicans to write
their own report. When asked point blank about the recommendations of
the Board, however, the witnesses didn’t cooperate with the GOP
narrative. “Absolutely,” Eric Nordstrom, the Regional Security Officer
for Libya prior to the assault in Benghazi, answered when asked if he
believes implementing the recommendations would improve security. “I had
an opportunity to review that along with other two committee reports. I
think taken altogether, they’re fairly comprehensive and reasonable.”
Hicks, when questioned, said that while he had some issues with the
process by which the Board gathered its information, he demurred on
criticizing the report itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment