Guardian UK has the most cogent Benghazi hearing coverage I've seen, go figure...

[sailingaway]

US officials blocked rescue effort while Benghazi burned, Congress told

While US diplomats were pulling bodies from a burning Libyan consulate and frantically smashing up hard drives last 11 September, their superiors blocked rescue efforts and later attempted to cover up security failings, according to damaging new evidence that may yet hurt Hillary Clinton's presidential hopes.

In vivid testimony to Congress on Wednesday, Gregory Hicks, deputy to murdered US ambassador Christopher Stevens, revealed for the first time in public a detailed account of the desperate few hours after the terrorist attacks on the US consulate in Benghazi.

He also said that Stevens went to Benghazi to beat a 30 September deadline to convert the mission to a permanent posting. There was additional time pressure because Clinton planned to visit Libya later in the year and to announce the opening of the post, Hicks said.

But Hicks and two other state department witnesses also singled out the government response for criticism. Until now that criticism had been largely dismissed as a partisan effort by Republican congressman to smear former Clinton, who was secretary of state at the time.

Hicks claimed Clinton's chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, telephoned him to complain that he had given critical evidence to congressional investigators without the presence of a "minder" from the state department. "A phone call from that senior a person is generally considered not to be good news," said Hicks, who said he had since been demoted. "She was upset. She was very upset."

The career diplomat also alleged he was actively discouraged by officials from asking awkward questions about why other top Clinton aides, including the UN ambassador Susan Rice, initially blamed the attack on a spontaneous protest that got out of control. He described that briefing he described as "jaw-dropping, embarrassing and stunning". It is now thought the attacks, involving up to 60 heavily armed militia, were co-ordinated by Ansar al-Sharia, a group affiliated to al-Qaida, and timed to coincide with the 11th anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington.

The allegations of a state department cover-up follow equally embarrassing claims that military leaders blocked efforts to dispatch special forces troops to the Benghazi consulate.

more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/201...officials-blocked-congress-hearing?CMP=twt_gu

 

[angelatc]

Yes, I find better coverage of just about everything comes from the UK these days.

 

[sailingaway]

Breitbart covered the LATimes's coverage of the hearing.... http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/...s-Covered-Today-s-Explosive-Benghazi-Hearings

not that Brietbart is unbiased, of course.

 

[oyarde]

Here is the deal , do not care what anyone thinks or says , assets were in place , as close as Tripoli that would have prevented this, shameful that it was not prevented. Who benefits and why ??

 

[Warlord]

Although a liberal UK newspaper the Guardian is massively expending its online and international footprint...

The reality is because they're from the UK they're actually just covering it and not ignoring it to protect Hillary.

The British press do not have the political agenda and so just stick to the facts and report what's going on and as they move over more to digital operations Americans will find their coverage of events more refreshing.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Here is the deal , do not care what anyone thinks or says , assets were in place , as close as Tripoli that would have prevented this, shameful that it was not prevented. Who benefits and why ??

What is shameful is that we had assets in the region at all. Only in an empire are we asking why the government didn't send jets, tanks, and goon squads into a foreign country to shoot everything in sight. And under the guise of "liberty," no less.

 

[Warlord]

The Daily Mail is one of my favorites (they're on the British right)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html

 

[enhanced_deficit]

Benghazi Panel Wants More Than Clinton's E-Mail

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s call for some of her private e-mails to be publicly disclosed won’t placate her critics, especially Republicans on the House special committee investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, who now demand access to far more information.
In a Twitter post late Wednesday, Clinton said she wants the State Department to publicly release her e-mails in its possession. The State Department said Thursday that it would begin a review of the more than 55,000 messages Clinton’s staff provided late last year. That is a portion of the trove stored at clintonemail.com, her private domain since 2009. But Republicans on the panel told us they are now asking for the e-mails Clinton hasn't provided to State, as well as the messages on her personal domain server that were written and received by top aides.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-05/clinton-s-e-mail-won-t-appease-benghazi-panel

 

[enhanced_deficit]

Bit too simplistic and all the captioned characterizations are not confirmed... but still pretty troubling picture. Who are the geniuses behind US foreign policy of late.