You don't hear much about Benghazi these days as all of the so-called "scandals" have fizzled (except inside the bubble, of course, where they are alive and well). In fact, I think most people missed this book when it came out last February as it didn't fit in with all the established narratives. From the review...
They also state that President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton learned of the situation too late to do anything about it. I’ve dealt with the State Department and Department of Defense bureaucracies long enough to believe that. They also point out that the consulate in Benghazi was not a true consulate, but a temporary facility. Again, I buy that at face value. In addition, the unselfish heroism of CIA contractors in giving their lives to attempt to save other Americans is not disputable. They were true American heroes. The controversy is that the contractors initiated the rescue mission from the CIA compound despite the guidance of the CIA boss.
Apparently the book lays quite a bit of the blame over security failures at the feet of the CIA. This is likely why we have not heard much about went wrong at the compound and who was responsible for both the attack and the intelligence. The CIA is very secretive to begin with and are not very keen to mea culpa.
It might be years before we find out what exactly was going on at Benghazi and with the new revelations that Ambassador Stevens may have turned down calls for extra security himself, it may even be more muddy.
3 comments:
So I follow the links, and ... yawn. The book gives no information not already known since the beginning of last October (at the latest) by those who follow such things and is full of unsourced allegations. Many of which do ring true, the State Dept. has a lot of good people, but as an organization it is disfunctional and often cluelessly ineffective. I know people who've worked for State at foreign embassies, and they have the same view.
The link from The Hill has anonymous sources alleging Stevens turned down additional security when we have written evidence that he did request such security several times. If this was true, we'd have heard about it a hell of a lot sooner. Like by Sept. 1, 2012.
Speaking of State Dept. shenanigans, what to make of this burglary that took place at the law firm representing State Dept. whistleblowers. A burglary that stole only computers, but nothing valuable, and only broke into the one office in the building? A third-rate burglary?
Err, Sept. 16, 2012.
Yes, there is a perverse credit due the Obama Administration - with the latest scandal pushing the preceding ones into the background. Pretty soon, even the hardiest are scandal fatigued.
Already, the contours of the Snowden revelations are falling into a dusky background, while the feckless downplay the destruction of our Constitutional liberties at the hands of a cancerous govt.
Post a Comment