You know that the Obama administration has a public-relations nightmare on its hands when Salon writes an article bolstering the credibility of a Republican argument.
Yes, hell just might have frozen over.
Three “whistleblowers” are set to testify on Wednesday regarding the Benghazi terror attacks of September 2012. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has predicted that the “dam is about to break” regarding the Benghazi situation. During a radio interview with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, he specifically mentioned former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the State Department for being “asleep at the switch.”
According to Breitbart, allegations might include government interference in the security clearances for attorneys representing these whistleblowers, as well as the Obama administration ordering military assets to stand down instead of responding to the terrorist attacks on the consulate.
The three whistleblowers that will be testifying are Gregory Hicks, a second in command State Department official in Libya, Eric Nordstrom, a State Department regional security officer, and Mark Thompson, a deputy coordinator for the State Department’s counter-terrorism bureau. The three will be speaking before the House Oversight Committee on Capitol Hill. Salon’s Alex Seitz-Wald went so far as to remark that these three seem credible.
During a Fox News interview, Senator Graham claimed that the three are coming forward with information because of their conscience, despite a desire to stay out of politics. According to the State Department, Hicks is supposed to have an axe to grind against the State Department.
The reason that the issue is so hot with Republicans is because of the circumstances present in the Obama administration’s handling of the September 11, 2012 attack on the consulate. On September 12, President Obama released a statement blaming the attack on mob violence brought about by an anti-Muslim video — a statement that Republicans claim was not true. The White House later issued another statement claiming that the first statement was intentionally misleading due to an attempt at protecting an FBI investigation. The House Republicans then released a report saying that the White House and State Department failed to act on intelligence suggesting terrorist involvement.
As a citizen, I see concern for both sides of the issue. On one hand, I understand that sometimes our president and high-ranking intelligence officials might be forced to lie about certain circumstances in order to protect the nation. If coming forward with the full story about the Benghazi attacks threatens the security of the nation or its people, then the administration is put in a terribly difficult position. However, that ability to lie for protection of the people might also be taken advantage of for political gain. It is therefore important that we discover why the administration did engage in a certain form of cover-up. Was it done so for political gain or was it done for the purposes of security? We also must be hesitant about the Republicans taking advantage of the issue and potentially exploiting the cover-up for their own political gain. Hopefully Wednesday’s testimonies will shed light on the truth of the issue.