Benghazi Survivors: What Difference Do They Make, Hillary Clinton?

On July 18, 2013, Representative Frank Wolf (R – VA) took to the floor of the House and revealed some incredible information to the American people: the survivors of the armed assault on the Benghazi diplomatic compound last September have been silenced. He said, “According to trusted sources that have contacted my office, many if not all of the survivors of the Benghazi attacks along with others at the Department of Defense, the CIA have been asked or directed to sign additional non-disclosure agreements about their involvement in the Benghazi attacks.”

This leads to a one-word question: Why?

Here we are, fully seven months after an ambassador was assassinated and three other Americans murdered in a terrorist attack yet we still do not have a full explanation of what occurred that evening, what President Obama was doing after he left the Situation Room after being informed his personal representative to Libya was missing, never once contacted anyone to get an update.  We have yet to be told why the ambassador was in Benghazi and not in the embassy in Tripoli; what was going on in that very dangerous area of the country that required his presence?  So many questions that demand answers but the revelation yesterday practically shouts: Why? Why have the survivors of the assault been kept from disclosing their knowledge of events from Members of Congress who have a Constitutional mandate to inquire?

If the reasoning behind the non-disclosure agreements is National Security, and if there is a real danger in having the information made public, this is easily remedied by having the committee(s) of jurisdiction interview the survivors, on camera, behind closed doors.  This would not be unique at all, not even in investigating this very matter.  Members would be allowed to ask their questions; the survivors, and the others who have been required to maintain non-disclosure, would be free to offer their testimony without concern.  If all of these security matters were to be properly taken care of, what reason could there be in keeping this necessary information secret?

Could it be that they would testify as to the fact there were no demonstrations, no protest going on over a youtube video that was seen by tens of people?  This is hardly something that needs to be hushed up, that story has already been debunked. Without any other reasonable explanation offered, my only guess is that the Benghazi survivors can give details as to just what the so-called
“diplomatic mission” in Benghazi entailed, and why indeed Ambassadors Stevens and his aide, Sean Smith were there.  Those details may also explain why no military assistance was ordered to defend the compound and the Americans who were under attack all those hours.  We have had testimony that some military were readied, but as we now know, none were actually deployed.  This is yet another instance to inquire: Why?  The answers to that so far are not reasonable, as is the on-going stalling by this administration.