Sounds to me like somebody wants the blame put in the right place

While Democrats and the mainstream media -- but I repeat myself -- continue to claim that all of the questions about the deaths of four Americans during a terrorist attack on Benghazi, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya, have been answered and that there's nothing to see here, it seems that some important people disagree. Take former CIA Director Leon Panetta and former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell, who appeared at a recent panel lecture and agreed that further investigation into the attack is warranted:

But Panetta and Morell, noting the attack has been subject to many investigations already, said they welcome the latest one in the House.
"If you look at the polling numbers a not insignificant percentage of the American people still have questions," Morell said.
Morell, who said he already has testified four times about Benghazi, said he is 100 percent confident the upcoming investigation will show that allegations "the intelligence community politicized its analysis" are false.
"Obviously there is a concern whether it's going to be a political effort to target an issue for a campaign," Panetta said. "I hope Democrats participate, and it really is a legitimate effort."Panetta, a former Central Coast congressman and Democratic Party stalwart, said there needs to be an investigation to lay out the full story to the public. "The problem has been sometimes bits and pieces of information keep coming out" that raise more questions, he said.

It seems clear that these two want to make sure everybody knows that the CIA did not provide the bullshit talking points that the administration tried to trot out, blaming the attack on a spontaneous protest against a You Tube video. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, the flunkiest of flunkies an administration could ever have, trotted that shit out on five different Sunday morning talk shows six days after the attack even though everyone involved knew from the beginning this was no spontaneous protest. What Panetta and Morrell want everybody to know is that the CIA didn't put out the horseshit that Rice spewed -- that the CIA's analysis was changed by the White House. The recent release of emails that were requested long ago but inexplicably withheld until last week show that this was the case, but Panetta and Morell want folks to be sure.

Guy Benson at Town Hall blasts Chuck Todd for his "all questions have been answered" stance, but concedes that Todd acknowledges that "larger" quests remain:

Yes, there have been a number of investigations into the deadly raid, including revelatory House hearings, aSenate report, and a State Department-mandated review. The House proceedings answered some questions, but raised others. The Senate Intelligence panel's report concluded that the attacks were preventable, andrebuked the Obama administration for "unnecessarily hamper[ing] the committee's review." The State Department's "Accountability Review Board" declined to interview key players, including Secretary Clinton. None of the Benghazi survivors have testified publicly. Furthermore, new information and perspectives have come to light within the last few weeks. A court-ordered document release turned up a relevant,previously-withheld email that further undermines the White House's official version of events regarding their post-attack talking points, and an Air Force General who was on duty at AFRICOM that night said the military never received a request for help from the State Department during the eight-hour ordeal. He went on to suggest that the US government should have attempted a rescue mission, which other military officers have testified wouldn't have been logistically feasible. A majority of the House of Representatives -- including a handful of Democrats -- clearly believes that unanswered questions remain. A large majorityof the American public is skeptical of the White House's veracity and supports keeping the investigation open and ongoing. Two former top CIA officials have endorsed the proceedings. Most Beltway Democrats, and apparently Chuck Todd, dissent. Todd is a journalist. It's therefore a bit jarring to hear him declare that "all" questions pertaining to a controversial matter have been answered, thus intimating that the issue is settled -- particularly after previously-unseen evidence has just recently emerged.

Benson then lays out 10 paragraphs of questions -- there are sub-questions within the paragraphs -- that have not been answered, and they are biggies:

(4) Where was the president during the hours-long raid? A former administration official recently revealed that Obama was not in the White House situation room. With an ambassador missing, a consulate under attack, and American lives hanging in the balance, why wasn't he actively managing the US response?

(5) During the attack, a rapid-response, investigative "FEST" team was reportedly told to stand down. Is that true, and if so, why? After the attack, why did it take American investigators weeks to access the burned-out compound? How could it be that the media first discovered Amb. Stevens' personal journal -- again, weeks after the event?

(6) When the administration's post-attack talking points were being formulated, who within the State Department's "building leadership" objected to references to Al Qaeda and previous attempted attacks on the facility? Who was "very upset" about initial (accurate) versions of the talking points, and why? Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland fretted in an email that including certain elements might lead to members of Congress criticizing the State Department for "not paying attention to warnings." Is that not an overtly political concern?

(7) Since the CIA never linked the Benghazi bloodshed to an internet video, how and why was that false linkage repeatedly cited by top administration officials days, and even weeks, later? As the attacks were definitively determined to have been a coordinated terrorist operation within hours, why did top officials continue to invoke the video, and hedge on the terrorism angle? Why was the creator of that video arrested and jailed? Does the administration stand by its claim that the White House and State Department only requested a single cosmetic change to the talking points, even after its been proven to be false?

 The administration has been lying. Then they lie about their lies. Sorry, kids, but these larger questions have to be examined. Who decided to reject repeated requests for more security in Benghazi? Who decided not to ask the military for help? What the fuck was the CIA doing in Benghazi in such force? Why was the ambassador there, and with so little secutiry? Who decided it was a good idea to oust Mohammar Quadaffy and then just step aside to let chaos rein in Libya? The administration doesn't want these and other questions answered because the answers most like involve the president himself and/or the former secretary of state who might kinda sorta hope to run for president in 2016. It seems unlikely that the answers to the unanswered questions will reflect well on either of those stalwarts. That is no reason to leave the questions unanswered. It is time to cut through the lies and silence the administration has put up surrounding the events at Benghazi.