Benghazi cover-up continues

Thomas Lifson
The Obama and Clinton political machines know how to protect and reward their friends and punish their enemies. The 9/11 attack on the Benghazi diplomatic facility represents a clear and present danger to continued Democrat domination of the White House, and so it is of prime importance to keep gums from flapping about what really happened.

Daniel Greenfield reports at Front Page Magazine:

At the Congressional hearing, Charlene Lamb stated that she would not have approved more security for Benghazi and said, "we had the correct number of assets in Benghazi at the time of 9/11 for what had been agreed upon."

That conclusion was shot down by the first friendly insider "protect Hillary" report and the second more serious Senate report. Lamb also refused to describe Benghazi as a terrorist attack.

Eric Nordstrom, the regional security officer, blamed Lamb directly in his testimony.

In that interview, Nordstrom said he sent two cables to State Department headquarters in March 2012 and July 2012 requesting additional diplomatic security agents for Benghazi, but he received no responses.

He stated that Charlene Lamb, the deputy assistant secretary for international programs, wanted to keep the number of U.S. security personnel in Benghazi artificially low. He said Lamb believed the Benghazi facilities did not need any diplomatic security special agents because there was a residential safe haven to fall back to in an emergency.

So obviously the thing to do is to move Lamb up the ladder.

Will we ever know the truth? Voters deserve to know it before casting their 2016 presidential votes. But probably the turth will out only with a Republican president after 2016, and only if it is someone who has the guts to go after the turth.

The Obama and Clinton political machines know how to protect and reward their friends and punish their enemies. The 9/11 attack on the Benghazi diplomatic facility represents a clear and present danger to continued Democrat domination of the White House, and so it is of prime importance to keep gums from flapping about what really happened.

Daniel Greenfield reports at Front Page Magazine:

At the Congressional hearing, Charlene Lamb stated that she would not have approved more security for Benghazi and said, "we had the correct number of assets in Benghazi at the time of 9/11 for what had been agreed upon."

That conclusion was shot down by the first friendly insider "protect Hillary" report and the second more serious Senate report. Lamb also refused to describe Benghazi as a terrorist attack.

Eric Nordstrom, the regional security officer, blamed Lamb directly in his testimony.

In that interview, Nordstrom said he sent two cables to State Department headquarters in March 2012 and July 2012 requesting additional diplomatic security agents for Benghazi, but he received no responses.

He stated that Charlene Lamb, the deputy assistant secretary for international programs, wanted to keep the number of U.S. security personnel in Benghazi artificially low. He said Lamb believed the Benghazi facilities did not need any diplomatic security special agents because there was a residential safe haven to fall back to in an emergency.

So obviously the thing to do is to move Lamb up the ladder.

Will we ever know the truth? Voters deserve to know it before casting their 2016 presidential votes. But probably the turth will out only with a Republican president after 2016, and only if it is someone who has the guts to go after the turth.