Posted on 01/23/2014 11:18:38 AM PST by Kaslin
Gregory Hicks is a whistleblower who was bullied by the Obama administration and effectively punished when he tried to tell the truth about what happened on-the-ground in Benghazi, Libya on 9/11/12. He was there that day working as a diplomat for the State Department, and later testified he knew from the beginning terrorists were responsible for the attack, and thus “immediately” informed his superiors. The Senate Select Committee findings last week, however, concluded that the attacks on the U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi were preventable. But where does ultimate responsibility lie? The answer is obvious: with the current administration, which denied Amb. Stevens’ “repeated requests” for more security and protections on the ground. Nonetheless, there’s been speculation in certain quarters that Amb. Christopher Stevens himself -- who was the first ambassador to lose his life in service to his country since 1979 -- was at least partially responsible for the raid. Could he have "done more" to stop it? Here’s Piers Morgan asking John McCain that very question last week:
Piers to McCain: Wasn't Benghazi Mostly Ambassador Stevens' Fault? CNN (1.16.2014)
Now Hicks is taking a stand, writing at the WSJ that it’s high time to absolve the ambassador of any wrongdoing:
Last week the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence issued its report on the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya. The report concluded that the attack, which resulted in the murder of four Americans, was "preventable." Some have been suggesting that the blame for this tragedy lies at least partly with Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was killed in the attack. This is untrue: The blame lies entirely with Washington.
You can read the entire op-ed here. But here’s what matters:
To sum up: Chris Stevens was not responsible for the reduction in security personnel. His requests for additional security were denied or ignored. Officials at the State and Defense Departments in Washington made the decisions that resulted in reduced security. Sen. Lindsey Graham stated on the Senate floor last week that Chris "was in Benghazi because that is where he was supposed to be doing what America wanted him to do: Try to hold Libya together." He added, "Quit blaming the dead guy."
Yes, the State Department has obviously “screwed up.” But who’s taking responsibility? Crickets.
Sounds like the collective mentality thing has saturated the lefties’ minds, like the morons blaming the guy who was shot in a movie theater for not leaving to the lobby to text his babysitter, since it bothered the guy behind him enough to shoot himpoint blank in the chest.
So sick of liberal mushbrains blaming the victim — as long as the victim is not one of their Church of Perpetual Grievance cultural poverty clients.
So what exactly was Stevens doing there, presumably with the knowledge of Hillery and Obama, that they all wanted the U.S. Military to be unaware of?????
This article is excellent. Find the WSJ and read it. It explains a lot of the misinformation that the Obama government has been spewing. Hick points out that his account of everything that went on and the conditions in which they were working, as well as his detailed account of interference from Patrick Kennedy at the State Dept. and Leon Panetta at Defense, was curiously enough left out of the Senate’s final report.
Hicks was actually there in Libya, and knew Stevens quite well.
I speculate that the lid will blow off this cover up in the near future. There are witness that know exactly why Stevens was there and why 31 CIA weapons experts were there. Was there a “deal” going down on 9/11? What was Stevens doing there on 9/11 ? The blatant panic driven lie about some “video” and the actual perpetuation of that hoax to the 4 men’s family members shows literal desperation.The pressure not to talk is an obvious red flag. Hicks is a hero.
From all the utterings on both sides, I can guess who was responsible. The Obama administration is trying to blame the man who was killed for not asking for help. The ambassador’s aids say he repeatedly asked for more security. Obama and Clinton could have sent more help but didn’t. It’s kind of clear that they sat while 4 people died and did nothing while something could have been done. Remember Clinton’s campaign ad where she said if the phone wrang in the White House who would you rather having answer it. From what I’ve seen, neither one!
Four people dead but, to quote Clinton, “at this point What does it matter?”.
I read it and I believe it.
But what about:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3114184/posts
My guess is Hillery and Obama were involved in some kind of military aid program to people like the supporters of Morsi or the Syrians and it was being done with the assistance of the Ambassador without the knowledge of the American Public. That would explain why the Obama gang refused to send regular military in there.
Stevens picked an interesting way to commit suicide.
The GOP should immediately blame State Department Undersecretary Patrick Kennedy for the death of the Ambassador and the three other Americans. Let’s see if he dumps on Hillary...
I think stevens found out about arming of our enemies, and obamma set him and the others up to die, so if they got caught they can say they stole the weapons, killing americans used to be against the law..now we are open season to this madman
Losing 400 surface to air missiles, that ended up with the terrorists. One reason they do not want to talk about it.
Recently, this article might explain why so many military officers are leaving the military??
Here’s all you need to know about Gregory Hicks: He claims he voted for Obastard in ‘12. Please note that was almost two months *after* Benghazi. Knowing what he did about Obastard, he still voted for him, he claims.
Either he is a liar, or an unprincipled tool, one or the other.
They might have been involved in something more complex, but I really think it was basically just because they wanted to pretend, now that Obama’s chosen jihadis had taken over and destabilized Libya, that all was normal and we had no worries. This was supposed to put a happy face on his most recent jihadi-friendly screw up.
I do think there was something in that warehouse that the jihadis wanted, and I have always thought it was very likely that some saner minds in the military were trying to recover the hundreds of missiles and other weapons that had gone missing during the Libyan trouble and were probably storing them there. I’m sure the Egyptians and everybody else in the ME knew this.
Obama is so awful that it’s hard to determine if his actions represent malice and are part of an evil grand plan, or if they’re just another random screw-up.
I doubt that Hick’s is lying about this because, believe me, The Won isn’t going to like it. Whether he did or did not vote for Obama (and I’m sure nobody would have dared to say they hadn’t voted for him), he’s bringing out some very important things now and they’re way too detailed for him to have made them up.
The Senate, while it found the State Dept. “sort of” at fault, never got into the things that Hicks told them and in fact blamed Stevens for the very things that Hicks is explaining were actually the fault of both the State Dept and DOD. The Senate did not include this in their report, and I think Hicks is angry. You can only push somebody so far, and Obama is pushing them beyond that point.
Maybe he is being truthful now...but I would corroborate everything he says to be sure.
Obama is so awful that it’s hard to determine if his actions represent malice and are part of an evil grand plan, or if they’re just another random screw-up.
My vote is on the former.
Did you read it? Believe me, he wouldn’t lie about this. It puts both State and DOD in a seriously bad light.
I already know they’re all lying. What I wonder is, how many people is this guy going to bring on board with me?
State Department Undersecretary Patrick Kennedy is mostly to blame for the disaster at Benghazi for refusing the SST (Site Security Team) extension of one more year, thinking that locals could provide security.
Stevens believed that if there was trouble he could rely on support from operators at the CIA station house nearby.
Stevens also believed that he had such good rapport with the local militias that the Mission could rely on them also to keep the neighborhood quiet.
Stevens also believed that the weapons the Brits stored at our Mission when they bailed out would stay secret, even though locals working for us were aware.
Iranian Quds Force operators were in the area and wanted our CIA Station House degraded so that they could buy Ghaddafi’s weapons more easily, especially the SAMs. They were the mortar attack team and set up the kill zones on the streets between the Mission and the CIA Station that night.
So, the enemy was a complicated coalition that used our vulnerability.
Stevens always had the option of closing the Mission. The locals that were our security told him of the danger there that night and most of them bailed out.
BTW, Stevens ordered the storage of all that fuel used to burn the Mission. The fuel was to be used for our vehicles in case we chose to bail also.
It was a perfect storm of naivete, hubris, bad neighbors and lack of situational awareness. That is what happens when diplomats are charged with force protection.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.