American officials “instructed Benghazi hospital to list [US Ambassador] Stevens as ‘John Doe,’” Sharyl Attkisson reports at CBS:
U.S. officials gave instructions for Benghazi Medical Center to use a “John Doe” pseudonym on the death certificate of Ambassador Christopher Stevens after he died of asphyxiation in the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya. That’s according to a U.S. official speaking on condition of anonymity because the official isn’t authorized to speak publicly on the matter. The reason for the pseudonym, says the official, was to avoid drawing undue attention to the importance of the victim as Americans rushed to figure out how to recover Stevens’ body and return it to the U.S.
“Undue attention” from whom? As one person tweeted today in response to Attkisson’s story, ” if that does not say cover-up don’t know what does”.
As does this: “State Dept spokesperson: Meh, we haven’t really decided if we’re going to comply with that Benghazi subpoena,” Erika Johnsen writes today at Hot Air:
Since it sounds like the State Department might be willing to take this thing to court or pull out executive privilege or issue redacted versions of the documents or whatever other options/excuses they might be considering other than just handing them over, I’m wondering if something in them might finally provide some of the long sought-after explicit accountability for the conveniently altered talking points ahead of the presidential election. Letting this escalate even further suggests that they’re hoping they can just keep dragging this thing out until people get bored with it (Fast and Furious, anyone?).
That and the sheer number of scandals could also likely overwhelm low-information voters, particularly since few journalists in the legacy media are willing to pursue them to the degree that someone like Attkisson has — not the least of which because other journalists see that such determination can result in alienation from their (even more) pro-Obama producers and editors.