From ABC News, Dana Hughes and Luis Martinez reporting, we learn [tip of the fedora to Darleen Click][emphasis mine]:
The size and "lethality" of the attack on the U.S. consulate compound in Benghazi, Libya, that left Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead was "unprecedented," a senior State Department official said today.
Senior State Department officials today gave the most detailed account to-date of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on Sept. 11, which killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other diplomats. One official said the nature of the assault was unparalleled in recent history.
"The lethality and number of armed people is unprecedented," one of the officials said. "There was no attack anywhere in Libya — Tripoli or Benghazi — like this, So it is unprecedented and would be very, very hard to find a precedent like that in recent diplomatic history."
Though the timeline of events outlined on the call was similar to the last official account of the incident, which was given on Sept. 12, some stark differences and new details were revealed.
The biggest difference was a clear statement that there were no protests before the attack.…
As Darleen comments: ‘Yep, that’s their story … a month later … and they’re sticking to it’.
Many, including The Washington Post, are asking [tip of the fedora to Memeorandum]: Where’s Hillary? She has been curiously absent from public view recently.
Ed Morrissey has some questions [tip of the fedora to newrouter]:
…eventually the Secretary of State will have to answer — or answer for — serious questions that have arisen in the wake of the Obama administration’s narrative collapse on Benghazi. First, the State Department will have to reveal who told Susan Rice to go out and lie on national television about the nature of the attack. Either Rice did that willingly or unwittingly, but she clearly wasn’t being briefed by the State Department before those television appearances, as State now says they never believed that there were protests at the consulate before the attack. Did her superior at State — who can only be Hillary — tell her to use that story? Or did Rice take her marching orders from the White House itself? If so, who, and under what understanding: that the story was true, or that it was false? Next, and more importantly, come questions of security precautions at a consulate already under attack and located in Islamist Terrorism Central since the fall of Qaddafi. Hillary is ultimately responsible for that, too. Who told Benghazi and Ambassador Stevens to stop asking for more security, and who told that person to tell Stevens that? That buck either stops with Hillary or with Barack Obama himself.
Under these circumstances in earlier and more honorable times, both Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice would have already resigned their posts. That’s especially true in Rice’s case, who got caught pushing a lie that tried to cover up the fact that the US suffered a terrorist attack. Either the lie is hers, in which case resignation is the only possible step, or someone lied to her and used her to push it out to the public, in which case a person of her rank should resign immediately in protest and reveal what happened. The fact that Rice has not resigned as of yet tells us that the latter was not the case, and also tells us all we need to know about her integrity. As for Hillary Clinton, her “legacy” is about to get defined — unless she starts talking about who ordered the cover-up. If not, then we probably know all we need to know about her integrity and legacy as well.
[What so you expect Ed, honor among thieves?]
Over in the Comments section of Darleen’s post, Darth Levin comments:
…I’m still holding out hope for Hillary looking nice while tossing the SCOAMF under his own bus for a change. I doubt she will, but she certainly could if she wanted to.
Later, he writes:
…All she has to say is, “I was directed to…”. There’s only one person who can direct her, and that phrase is business-speak for “I didn’t agree with this silly-ass order, but I have to do what the boss says”.
QUESTION: Will Hillary throw Obama under the now famous bus?
Will she attempt to save what’s left of her ‘reputation’ and, thus, her political viability as far as the Left is concerned or will she sacrifice herself for Caesar. [According to Charlie Spiering at The Washington Examiner, Obama and Hillary will be meeting this afternoon, which leads to a new question: Will Valerie Jarrett be there?]
I really don’t know what she will do.
Some facts about Mzzz. Rodham to keep in mind…
-She is one of the most ruthless politicians in America today.
-Her political partner [and sometime husband] Bill ‘Why Don’t You Put Some Ice On That’ Clinton is not as ruthless as she is.
-She may genuinely be tired of the whole ‘political game’ — Billy Boy, too [although illness may play a part in his exhaustion].
-However, we know Bill wants revenge against Obama.
-However, Hillary seems to like The Man Without A County.
I would appreciate your thoughts.
