Benghazi Witnesses: Why Are They Calling Them “Whistleblowers”?
Whistleblower: A person who reveals wrongdoing or malpractice within an organization in the hopes of stopping it.
Recently several articles have noted that “multiple new whistleblowers” are speaking to investigators with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee about the Benghazi terrorist attacks last September. Considering that even mainstream media outlets are reporting the story, I can’t help but wonder what they are saying by using the term “whistleblower.” Could they be suggesting that someone within our government had something sinister and underhanded to do with the deaths of four Americans at the hands of Muslim terrorists?
Well, here is what we know. Terrorists attacked the Benghazi Consulate and a CIA annex on September 11, 2012, leading to the deaths of four Americans, including our ambassador, Christopher Stephens. His death was not pretty. Other Americans were injured, from seven to 30, depending on which source you read. Military assets were in the area and available to intervene, but were told to stand down. Our ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and even President Obama initially blamed the attack on a YouTube video that defamed Muhammed. They stood by their story even as it became clear that it was nothing more than a ridiculous distraction. Curiously, unlike the aftermath of other such tragedies, we have heard nothing in the press from the survivors of the attacks. We don’t even know how many there were, how they were injured, or where they are now. Republican congressmen are complaining about their lack of access to Benghazi survivors and Senator Lindsay Graham even claims that they have been told by the Obama administration to “keep quiet.”
During her testimony in front of a Senate committee in January regarding the causes of the attack, Hillary Clinton asked in frustration, “What difference, at this point, does it make?” (I wonder if she took that attitude when she worked with the House Judiciary Committee on Watergate.) Her replacement as Secretary of State, John Kerry, when asked by House Foreign Relations Committee member, Dana Rohrabacher, about the possibility of a government cover-up related to Benghazi concluded his answer with, “…we got a lot more important things to move on and get done.”
What difference does it make? What could be “more important” than knowing why an American ambassador died? Shouldn’t we know why he and three others were not rescued when there was a possibility of doing so? If members of our government, even at the highest level, were involved in covering up official (or unofficial) wrongdoing, shouldn’t we pursue that? If our leaders are trying to avoid prosecution for criminal acts or are trying to preserve their power at all cost, shouldn’t we know about it?
They are calling these witnesses whistleblowers. We have to conclude there is something very wrong about how our leaders have handled the Benghazi situation. We have to ask, and we have a right to know, as American citizens, what exactly are they blowing the whistle on?
