Benghazi Revisted

     The terrorist attack, most probably an Al Queda operation, that took the lives of U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three other brave Americans last September 11, was in fact one of the worst deliberate failures of an administration in recent history. And tomorrow when Republicant Darrell Issa's House oversight committee engages in another round of questioning officials with intimate knowledge of the attack, it is almost certain they will proffer no new information. That is why I do not harbor any anticipation that State Department employees, Gregory Hicks, Mark Thompson and Eric Nordstrom will sink the Obama ship of fools with their testimony.
     The "revelations" from these whistle blowers that have leaked out prior to their testimony are all things that have been known from the start. Like the fact that there was inadequate security for our diplomats in Benghazi, even after repeated requests from Ambassador Stevens. And that President Obama learned of the attack 5 pm Washington time on September 11, 2012 in the course of a regular meeting with then Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. He told Secretary Panetta and Secretary Clinton to handle it, he then disappeared and to this day his whereabouts during the attack are unknown. We also know that Hicks, Thompson and Nordstrom, along with other State Department employees, knew that U.N Ambassador Susan Rice was telling a huge whopper of a lie when she went on the Sunday shows days after the incident and said the attack was the result of a spontaneous demonstration prompted by an anti-Muslim YouTube video. A lie, by the way, that the entire administration, including the President himself, told Americans constantly for two weeks following the attack. President Obama and Secretary Clinton even appeared in a public service announcement that aired in Pakistan that apologized for the American value of free speech and repeated the YouTube video lie.
     The cover-up of the truth about Benghazi was unraveling from the start when the Libyan President was contradicted by Ambassador Rice when he said they knew the attack was a planned terrorist operation instigated by Al Queda, and not the result of some video. The Libyan president was so angered by the slight that he delayed FBI access to investigate the scene of the attack, leading to a less thorough investigation as a result of evidence being disturbed or destroyed. The reason for the clumsily constructed cover-up was so that the Obama re-election effort could continue to claim that Al Queada was in decline with the death of Osama Bin Laden. And it worked, the President was re-elected and the American public did not seem to mind the obvious and blatant lie told about Benghazi.
     Many conservatives have hung much hope on the Issa hearings as a way to neuter or even destroy the Obama presidency. But I am not holding my breath and would be surprised if anything more than a few low to mid-level State Department employees lost their jobs as a result. The reason for my pessimism is the public's demonstrated apathy over this issue and the main stream media's collusion with the Obama administration to continue the cover-up, no matter how far down the sewer of journalistic integrity they have to sink.