Benghazi Truths vs. Washington Politics

 

Benghazi Truths vs. Washington Politics

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323744604578471282063848980.html

 

Wednesday's hearing turned a light on a previously unnoticed player in the

story: Hillary Clinton's chief of staff.

 

By ELLIOTT ABRAMS

 

'I was stunned. My jaw dropped," said Gregory Hicks at Wednesday's House

hearing on the Benghazi terror attack last fall and its aftermath. Mr.

Hicks, deputy chief of mission in Libya under Ambassador Chris Stevens, was

referring to the now-famous TV appearances by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice.

 

Ms. Rice, blanketing the Sunday talk shows the weekend after the murderous

assault on the American consulate in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, spoke of

spontaneous protests and linked them to a video insulting Islam. But Mr.

Hicks said "there was no report from the U.S. Mission in Libya regarding a

demonstration," and there were no protests. "The YouTube video was a

nonevent in Libya," he added. In the last telephone call that Mr. Hicks

received from Stevens, the ambassador said "we're under attack" and then the

cell connection dropped.

 

The hearing deepened the mystery of how Ms. Rice came to say such things. It

added a new political wrinkle in the person of Cheryl Mills, whose role was

previously unnoticed. Mr. Hicks testified that when a Republican member of

the committee, Jason Chaffetz, visited Libya to investigate what had

happened, he was instructed that no State Department officer was ever to be

alone with the congressman-and that a lawyer was to attend every meeting he

had.

 

When the lawyer was excluded from one meeting with intelligence officers

because he lacked the security clearances, Mr. Hicks received a furious call

from Ms. Mills, who was then chief of staff to Secretary of State Hillary

Clinton. We can be confident that Ms. Mills, who represented Bill Clinton in

his impeachment hearings and who was counsel to the Hillary Clinton campaign

in 2008, was not calling to guarantee due process. She was calling to

protect Hillary Clinton.

 

Mr. Hicks also told the committee that when he asked the acting assistant

secretary for the Near East, Beth Jones, why Ms. Rice had spoken about

protests and the video, he was curtly told to drop that line of questioning.

 

Mrs. Clinton's role in this matter remains obscure, in part because the

State Department's Accountability Review Board did not interview her,

amazingly enough. The review board protected all of the department's

higher-ups and blamed career officials down the ladder. The board is now

itself under investigation by State's inspector general, and Wednesday's

testimony revealed the sore feelings of career officers about the review

board's conduct.

 

It is now widely known that the "annex" in Tripoli was a CIA location, but

the whole story of Benghazi makes little sense unless the CIA role in the

affair can be clarified. There were very few security officers at the

consulate, and this seems like a huge error by the State Department. But is

this because the whole Benghazi set-up was mostly a CIA operation?

 

That could explain as well why the annex was permitted there, though it did

not meet minimal State Department security standards. It may explain why

State had a presence in dangerous Benghazi at all-as a cover for the

intelligence presence. This may not be fodder for an open hearing, but

unless we understand the interplay between State and the CIA, we will not

have the full story.

 

The three witnesses-Mr. Hicks and two other State Department officers who

work on counterterrorism and security, Mark Thompson and Eric Nordstrom-came

across as civil servants of whom Americans can be proud. Mr. Hicks's account

of the night of the attack and following morning, and the desperate efforts

to save the Americans in Benghazi, were gripping.

 

The hearing room was silent as he told the tale, for the most part without

emotion. He named the Americans on his team who had risked their lives to

try and rescue Stevens, and others who had performed so well in the intense

crisis that gripped the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli. At 3 a.m. he gave the order

to abandon the embassy building because there were Twitter feeds saying an

attack was coming, and he told stories like that of the embassy nurse who

started "smashing computer hard drives with an ax" to protect classified

information.

 

The hearing also showed the chasm between the culture of career civil

servants ready to risk their lives and the vicious political culture of

Washington. No doubt politics motivated some of the Republicans, but due to

the nature of the hearing they were cast as investigators. Most Democrats

appeared far more dedicated to defending Mrs. Clinton and the Obama

administration than to finding out exactly what happened, and any criticism

of Ms. Rice was rebutted. After all, Chris Stevens is gone but 2016 is just

around the corner.

 

The three witnesses seemed to be visitors from a different reality-different

from Rep. Carolyn Maloney and her outrage that anyone could criticize the

great Secretary Clinton, or from Cheryl Mills and the anger she expressed at

Mr. Hicks for allowing a congressman to escape the presence of the lawyer

she had sent.

 

The Accountability Review Board was also part of that Washington culture,

protecting the top levels of the State Department-the secretary and the

deputy and under secretaries-and laying blame (and punishment) on the career

people below them. This hearing did not ascertain where the buck should

stop, but it was a step forward in getting the facts. And it was a reminder

that in Washington we should not permit people with political motives to

blight the careers of civil servants and blame them for failures of

management and policy at the top.

 

==========================================

(F)AIR USE NOTICE: All original content and/or articles and graphics in this

message are copyrighted, unless specifically noted otherwise. All rights to

these copyrighted items are reserved. Articles and graphics have been placed

within for educational and discussion purposes only, in compliance with

"Fair Use" criteria established in Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976.

The principle of "Fair Use" was established as law by Section 107 of The

Copyright Act of 1976. "Fair Use" legally eliminates the need to obtain

permission or pay royalties for the use of previously copyrighted materials

if the purposes of display include "criticism, comment, news reporting,

teaching, scholarship, and research." Section 107 establishes four criteria

for determining whether the use of a work in any particular case qualifies

as a "fair use". A work used does not necessarily have to satisfy all four

criteria to qualify as an instance of "fair use". Rather, "fair use" is

determined by the overall extent to which the cited work does or does not

substantially satisfy the criteria in their totality. If you wish to use

copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you

must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

 

THIS DOCUMENT MAY CONTAIN COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL. COPYING AND DISSEMINATION IS

PROHIBITED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNERS.