A key military intelligence figure’s testimony before the Congressional Oversight Committee opens up an extraordinarily sensitive and vitally important question: why hasn’t the White House paid the price for a very major scandal that would have ended any other presidency?
Retired USAF Brigadier General Robert Lovell made two overarching points in his appearance before Congress:
First, he noted it was clearly evident while the attack was progressing that the assault on the U.S. facility in Benghazi that killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans was not a reaction to a video. This fact was already known by the White House when the President intentionally misled the nation the morning after the incident in his statement from the White House grounds. It was also known some time later when both he and Secretary Clinton spoke later at the ceremony when the bodies of the fallen were returned to American soil and the video was again blamed by the Administration for the attack. And it was known much later when the President addressed the world at the United Nations and again blamed the video.
Independent international sources also disputed the White House claim. Both the Arab news source al Jazeera and the president of Libya, Mohammed Magarief said the video was not responsible and was virtually unknown. Magarief described the attack as a “preplanned act of terrorism.”
Second, General Lovell disputed the White House contention that there was no possibility of military action rescuing the Ambassador and others. “We should have tried,” he testified. Indeed, a glance at a map outlining the presence of American forces in the region indicates that there were several options that could have been deployed in such an attempt.
The fact that this White House cover-up occurred during, and likely changed the course of, the 2012 presidential elections renders it even more significant.
Several other incidents during the Obama presidency also would have been sufficient to rock prior administrations to their core. The use of the IRS to attack political opponents, the tapping of reporters phones, the failure to investigate clear-cut cases of voter intimidation, the transfer of weapons to Mexican drug cartels, the misuse of $700 billion in “stimulus” funds, the awarding of a no-bid contract for the Health Care website to a politically-connected contractor who then botched the job, all are misdeeds that are far more serious than the Watergate scandal that ended the presidency of Richard Nixon.
These are not ideological issues, about which one can say they were done to achieve a particular goal for the good of the nation, if one shares the president’s beliefs. They are, for the most part, venal acts performed for the sole purpose of either enhancing or retaining the power of the incumbent, or preventing embarrassment that could detrimentally affect the re-election chance of his political party.
The overwhelming support of much of the main stream media for Mr. Obama in both of his campaigns has neutered far too great a percentage of the nation’s journalists to allow them to perform their key roles in informing the American electorate. It is a fundamental breakdown of a key element of our nations’ democracy.