Since the president was re-elected, I have tried to stay away from political issues in my E-Letter and this blog. However, the terrorist attack on our American Consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012 – which left four Americans dead, including our Ambassador there – is an entirely different matter. Congress is still trying to get to the bottom of who told President Obama and other officials that the attack was a protest gone wrong over an anti-Muslim video on YouTube.
Here’s a CBS News piece from yesterday that sums up the current debate:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57555984/who-changed-the-benghazi-talking-points
The Benghazi story is still alive, in my opinion, only because UN Ambassador Susan Rice met privately with senior members of Congress this week about the matter. Ms. Rice, you may recall, was the Obama administration spokesperson who appeared on five Sunday talk shows on September 16 and continued to claim that the attack on Benghazi was the result of the anti-Muslim video, when everyone knew by then that it was a pre-planned terrorist attack.
In my opinion, this Benghazi story is going to virtually disappear from the mainstream media after UN Ambassador Susan Rice’s congressional meetings this week, despite mounting evidence of an orchestrated cover-up. One case in point: General David Petraeus testified on November 16 (after the election) that the CIA knew from the beginning that the Benghazi attack was an act of terrorism, but on September 14, he told Congress the attack was due to the anti-Muslim video. As noted above, Ambassador Rice said the same thing two days later.
Despite Ambassador Rice’s testimony this week, there are more questions than answers on the subject of why the administration chose to characterize the Benghazi attack as a violent reaction to a video, rather than the pre-planned, deadly terrorist attack that it was. Fortunately, the good folks at National Review Online posted a detailed list of the questions that still need to be asked and answered. Here are some excerpts (and a link to the full article):
“Today’s Questions for the President: Benghazi Edition |
Although the press displayed its usual tenacity during the recent presidential news conference, it may nonetheless benefit from a review of some of the more basic questions about the Benghazi controversy. Next time, perhaps members of the press might ask more than one question about the matter (congressional staffers are welcome to use the following as a starting point).
Failure to Secure the Consulate Prior to 9/11/12
Why were several requests for enhanced security prior to the attack on the U.S. consulate denied? Who denied the requests? On what basis? Why weren’t previous attacks on the consulate and the departure of the British and the Red Cross sufficient evidence that enhanced security was necessary? If the perilous circumstances leading up to the attack wouldn’t trigger enhanced security, what would? Why did Joe Biden falsely claim during the vice-presidential debate that no one asked for enhanced security? Was it due to ignorance or duplicity? Why wasn’t the false statement corrected immediately?
Failure to Secure Personnel During the Attack on the Consulate
What time on 9/11/12 did you learn of the attack? What were you told? By whom? What did you say and do upon being told?
It’s reported that you were meeting with SecDef [Leon] Panetta when the attack began. What advice, if any, did he give when the two of you were told of the attack? Were you meeting with anyone else when you were told of the attack? If so, who, and what did they say and do?
It’s reported that real-time video feeds were available during the attack. Did you watch the attack? If not, why not? If you did watch it, for how long and what did you observe? What conclusions did you draw from the fact that the attackers were using RPGs and mortars? Who else watched the attack with you?
On October 16, you were asked by a reporter whether you denied requests for aid during the attack. You responded, “The minute I found out this was going on, I gave three directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. Number two, we’re going to investigate exactly what happened to make sure it doesn’t happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice.”
To whom did you give the directive to secure our personnel? What did these individuals do to carry out your directive? When did they do so? What did they do? Why weren’t our personnel secured?
The New York Times reports that the Defense Department maintains that they didn’t get a request for help from the State Department. Why would the Defense Department even need to get such request if you had already issued your directive to secure our personnel?”
This list of questions continues and gets even better. To read the full article, CLICK HERE.
Sorry, comments are closed for this post.