well, there's so very much to tell you, it's hard to know where to begin
but you can look at it this way---the fact that you're hearing from me here and now on this perilously precipitous issue is most decidedly NOT good news
i'll tell you the end first
from the republican point of view today's hearings could in no imaginable way have possibly exceeded any conceivable expectations any more than the combined testimony of american heroes mark thompson, gregory hicks and eric nordstrom went down today
there will be more hearings, there will be lots more hearings, there will likely be a special committee established and formed by strangely orange john boehner for the exclusive puprose of looking into all these things benghazi in a leisurely and thorough and painstakingly time-consuming way
it's cuzza the kind of people who are, y'know, running the us house of representatives
and, of course, the fact that no answers were provided in the slightest measure to this growing number of very serious questions and concerns about exactly what the heck was this collective white house doing in the months before, the hours during, and the approaching year since these TERRORIST attacks...
indeed, the questions grow bigger and louder, they're echoing, and brand new ones, surprisingly pointy, arise
mr's hicks, thompson and nordstrom seemed to bring to finality, however, a number of controversies that were subject to some debate just yesterday, that is, several points of dispute appear by the end of the hearings today largely to be accepted without rebuttal even by the democratic members
any idea that what happened in benghazi had anything to do with spontaneity or demonstrations, protests and/or videos, is inarguably absurd---which point was repeated all day and met with silence
such that, any subsequent mention of the same would be established by now as after-the-fact fabrication
that a stand down order was issued is equally accepted, at least tacitly, as consensus
and that arb holds accountable only professional department staffers BELOW a certain level similarly brooks no objection, that is, senior rankers at state are evidently above reproach
and this, via the new york times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/09/us...tack.html?_r=0A veteran diplomat gave a riveting [wapo calls it "riveting and emotional"] minute-by-minute account on Wednesday of the lethal terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, last Sept. 11 and described its contentious aftermath in nearly five hours of testimony at a charged Congressional hearing that reflected the weighty political stakes perceived by both parties.
During a chaotic night at the American Embassy in Tripoli, 600 miles away, the diplomat, Gregory Hicks, got what he called “the saddest phone call I’ve ever had in my life” informing him that Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens was dead and that he was now the highest-ranking American in Libya. For his leadership that night when four Americans were killed, Mr. Hicks said, he subsequently received calls from both Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and President Obama.
But within days, Mr. Hicks said, after raising questions about the account of what had happened in Benghazi offered in television interviews by Susan E. Rice, the United Nations ambassador, he felt a distinct chill from State Department superiors. “The sense I got was that I needed to stop the line of questioning,” said Mr. Hicks, who has been a Foreign Service officer for 22 years.
He was soon given a scathing review of his management style, he said, and was later “effectively demoted” to desk officer at headquarters, in what he believes was retaliation for speaking up.
At Benghazi hearing, State Dept. officials challenge administration review of attacks - The Washington PostHicks, a 22-year veteran of the department, said senior U.S. leaders, including President Obama and Clinton, lauded his performance during the crisis. After he questioned why Susan E. Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, had delivered talking points that linked the attack to a demonstration, his superiors turned on him, Hicks testified.
sorry to say, samson, but that's coverup
and that's nyt and wapo, hardly your fox news
this bodes bad
cuz we're only beginning
ron fournier's elite left natl journal:
The High Cost to the White House of Stonewalling on Benghazi - NationalJournal.comBenghazi is not going away.
furthermore, former acting mission chief cum desk officer gregory hicks not only testified that he was threatened, intimidated and demoted
no, the 22 year career staffer who served with distinction under 3 presidents without a blot also told the world exactly WHO did the threatening, intimidating and demoting
and that'd be CHERYL MILLS, hillary rodham clinton's chief of staff, and BETH JONES, acting assistant secretary for middle eastern affairs, the #3 in this particular chain of foggy bottom, after patrick kennedy and hrc
the latter of whom, ms jones, gregory hicks testified, directed upon him a "blistering attack"
but there's more:
Benghazi witness: State Department told me not to speak to members of Congress | WashingtonExaminer.comDuring Wednesday’s House Oversight Committee hearing, Gregory Hicks, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Triploli, Libya, confirmed that he was told by the State Department not to speak to members of Congress while they were investigating details of the Benghazi consulate attacks.
Hicks testified that State Department lawyers instructed him to avoid an interview with Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, who traveled to Libya to investigate the attacks.
“I was instructed not to allow the RSO, the acting deputy chief of mission and myself to be personally interviewed by Congressman Chaffetz,” Hicks replied when questioned by Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio.
Chaffetz is a member of the House and Oversight Committee.
Hicks detailed another conversation he had with Cheryl Mills, the counselor and chief of staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, after he complied with the congressional delegation.
According to Hicks, Mills was “very upset” that he spoke to investigators in a classified briefing without a State Department lawyer present.
indeed, chief of staff to hrc mills tried to insist on desk officer hicks speaking to republicans ONLY in the presence of a state dept lawyer
i have quite a bit more to tell you, i'm sure you appreciate
this is a giant story
but a good storyteller knows where to leave it
and so do i
talk to ya soon