Skip Navigation

Close and don't show again.

Your browser is out of date.

You may not get the full experience here on National Journal.

Please upgrade your browser to any of the following supported browsers:

The High Cost to the White House of Stonewalling on Benghazi The High Cost to the White House of Stonewalling on Benghazi

NEXT :
This ad will end in seconds
 
Close X

Not a member or subscriber? Learn More »

Forget Your Password?

Don't have an account? Register »

Reveal Navigation
 

 

The High Cost to the White House of Stonewalling on Benghazi

+

Glass, debris and overturned furniture are strewn inside a room in the gutted U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.(AP Photo/Ibrahim Alaguri)

Benghazi is not going away.

On Wednesday, U.S. diplomat Gregory Hicks came to Congress with headline-worthy testimony. He told House Oversight that officials in Libya were denied permission to deploy special forces to counter the attacks that killed an American ambassador. Hicks is one of three officials brought in as “whistleblowers” to challenge the administration account of its handling of the incident last year.

 

Hicks raises big questions – serious ones about what the Obama administration (especially Hillary Clinton) knew and did in response.

When asked about the upcoming hearing, White House spokesman Jay Carney largely deflected. Curiously, the Obama administration also won’t talk about the footage that they have from the compound – video that some people who have seen it argue could clear up questions about whether the incident was a premeditated terrorist attack or something less.

They just really don’t want to talk about this.

 

But the last time the administration played keep-away on a security issue was drones, and that didn’t work out so well for the White House. Benghazi has already cost the president his first choice for secretary of State. What could stonewalling cost the White House this time?

Comments
comments powered by Disqus
 
MORE NATIONAL JOURNAL