John Feehery: Speaking Engagements

Header

Benghazi

Posted on May 9, 2013
medium

Why did Susan Rice insist that this attack was caused by Muslims irate at some stupid video, instead of explaining that either she didn’t know or that it was clearly a terrorist attack?



I haven’t been paying too much attention to the Benghazi thing.

Fox News is fixated on it, but Fox gets fixated on a lot of things that don’t particularly interest me.

So I was pretty surprised when the Benghazi attacks resurfaced throughout the media yesterday and today, even on MSNBC.

I didn’t watch the hearing live (I have a day job, and I was busy doing that day job), but I saw the news reports later.

A couple of things interested me.

Bill Clinton’s impeachment lawyer was central to the Benghazi investigation.

Isn’t it amazing how the same people just keep showing up in the middle of all kinds of scandals.

Cheryl Mills, who led the former President’s defense when he was being impeached for having sex with an intern, had the job of telling potential whistle-blowers in the State Department to keep their fat mouths shut.

Apparently, she told these whistle-blowers to not cooperate with Congressional investigators.  It is not clear if she was the one who told these long-time public servants that they were going to be demoted or if that came later.

But it turns out, she is Hillary Clinton’s muscle.

I find that interesting.  Not fascinating, not earth-shattering, not impeachable, but interesting nonetheless.

Another thing interested me.

Why did Susan Rice insist that this attack was caused by Muslims irate at some stupid video, instead of explaining that either she didn’t know or that it was clearly a terrorist attack?

By being so clearly wrong, she lost herself a shot at being the Secretary of State.   And she embarrassed the administration and apparently really pissed off the eventual State Department Whistle-blower.

Why didn’t the White House send it either troops or military jets to stop the murder of our folks?  What took them so long?  Is there more to the story?

Was the Ambassador free-lancing when he was in Benghazi?

We still don’t know all of the answers here.

Darrell Issa is probably doing this investigation in part because he wants to knock Hillary Clinton down a peg or two.   But he also probably wants to get to the facts.

The more the Obama White House chooses to obfuscate, cover-up and squash the testimony of whistle-blowers, the better it is for Darrell Issa.

It’s always the cover-up that gets you.  Why don’t politicians ever learn that lesson?