The dam really is breaking on Benghazi with even reliable Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein offering criticism of the administration on Meet the Press Sunday.
Will she go under the bus too in the next Jay Carney press briefing, as have the State Department and the CIA? Hard to say, but here’s what the California senator said:
“I think this is a cautious administration,” Feinstein told host David Gregory. ”But this is one instance where, you know, it was what it was. And you saw it. The minute you knew what happened, you knew it was a terrorist attack. And you knew these groups had camps all around the area.”
She also added: “When you see a group going up with RPGS and weapons to break into one of our facilities, you can assume it’s a terrorist attack.”
Cautious administration? Well, maybe — or perhaps more accurately propagandistic and self-preservational.
The latter theory gets traction from the reporting on the editing of the talking points by Jonathan Karl and Stephen Hayes. The officials involved don’t seem concerned with truth, only with saving organizational (State Dept., CIA) or political (Obama, Clinton) face.
Several of these officials doing this editing are already trying to save their reputations, promoting the idea that they are not responsible for the malfeasances of their superiors. That’s true to some extent — their superiors are likely more culpable — but I am not buying their excuse. Call me old-fashioned, but I think the responsibility of an American diplomat and/or official is finally to the American people first. Gregory Hicks could put it on the line for the public. Why couldn’t they?
Even now these officials have not, to my knowledge, volunteered to step forward to testify. Perhaps one of them would explain just why the State Department failed to give an ambassador (or anyone, for that matter) decent security on September 11, in Libya of all places, a country even a disinterested layman would know was roughly as safe as the Somme during World War I.
Or perhaps they could tell who it was that had been refusing security — despite repeated terror attacks — for their Libyan staff for several months and why he or she was refusing it. Where did the buck stop?
And then there’s the matter of why backup was refused for our men on the ground in Benghazi that night and morning. The “not enough time” excuse doesn’t go very far when you consider that no one could possibly know when the terror attacks would end.