The Battle of Benghazi: Still not Getting to the Core of the Issue

I am posting via a finicky IPAD with an old OS and have to do so in HTML. Please forgive my ineptness in HTML; I still have not learned to do links so I will refer to past postings but not be able to link to them.

I watched the Benghazi hearings. I heard nothing unusual said except that this time it was the truth, albeit the "truth" with a small "t," but the truth, nevertheless. That truth has begun, slowly, slowly, to scrape away the thick layers upon layers of lies painted on by the Obama administration and its media enablers. The most obvious point is that the timeline of the attacks laid out by the witnesses shows that there was time for a US response; that somebody up the chain prevented that response for political not operational reasons; that those political levels took the deliberate decision to lie about what happened at Benghazi; and they send out the execrable hack Susan Rice to blanket the media outlets with the lie. It is also clear that the silly YOUTUBE video had nothing to do with the attack. Please see my prior postings on this for my take on how Obama and Rice lied.

As noted, the comments made were of the small truth variety. The big truth, the big smelly camel in the tent, is that the Benghazi disaster was a tragedy, not in the debased sense with which the word is now used by the media almost daily, but a tragedy in the original Greek sense: a horrid outcome that was foreseen but yet the players continued to march toward that outcome. The Obama policy on Libya was a horrid mess from the start. As I have written before, the Obama/Clinton policy was an ill-thought-out one driven by the needs of the Europeans and not by US interests. When Qaddafy was a threat, some twenty-five to thirty years ago, and Reagan acted against it, the Europeans and the US liberals were aghast. The French did not even give us permission to fly through their airspace to hit Libya. Once Bush, yes, Bush of the "W" variety, disarmed Qaddafy--remember that Qaddafy gave up his nuclear program, allowed the US to cart it away, and became our collaborator against Al Qaeda when he saw the fate of Saddam--then the liberals and the European left began to insist on Qaddafy's removal. The Europeans were upset that Qaddafy did not give them special oil concessions and, in fact, preferred to do business with American companies. He was, as I have written before, like an old repentant Mafia chieftain trying to score some points with the FBI. I have personal experience working with Qaddafy's officials against AQ targets.

Obama, of course, listened to the Europeans, something you should never do except if it involves brewing a good cup of coffee, and we have disaster unleashed in North Africa. Our policy has created an arc of instability in the Magreb, reaching all the way to Cairo, and heading for Syria. We made North Africa safe for AQ and affiliates.

That is the Truth we will not likely hear at these hearings. That is the reason that the Obama people went so far out of the path of truth to cover up the Benghazi disaster. They could not admit that it was their foreign policy, not some obscure video made in the California desert, that killed our people in Benghazi. This would not have happened had Qaddafy been in power. Period.