"A retired military official who served at U.S. Africa Command in Germany during the time of the Benghazi attack says that the United States 'should have tried' to send help to Americans under fire there.
'There are accounts of time, space and capability discussions of the question, could we have gotten there in time to make a difference,' Air Force Brigadier General Robert Lovell (Ret.) told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. 'Well, the discussion is not in the ‘could or could not’ in relation to time, space and capability. The point is we should have tried.'
Lovell also told the panel that U.S. officials knew at the outset of the attack that it was 'hostile action' and not a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Islam video. But as the military weighed its reaction, he said, 'there was a lot of looking to the State Department for what it was that they wanted.'"
And then there is also the recently revealed Rhodes email, which established the "goal" of underscoring "that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy" (see: http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-benghazi-documents-point-white-house-misleading-talking-points/).
Could these bombshells have an impact upon the chances of Hillary ('What difference does it make") in 2016? Although her nomination will still be a cakewalk, her election is far from assured.
Might she not run? Not a chance. Vanity will conquer reason.
No comments:
Post a Comment