The Benghazi attacks: Answers are overdue
November 07, 2012 12:32 AM | 1500 views | 0 0 comments | 9 9 recommendations | email to a friend | print
The outcome of Tuesday’s presidential election was unknown as this was written, but one thing was clear none the less: the Obama administration had yet to come clean about the Benghazi attack that left the U.S. Ambassador to Libya and three other brave Americans dead. The attack, and the ensuing Obama cover-up, are matters that must be pursued whether Obama won another four years on Tuesday or is a lame duck.

It is clear that Obama and his minions successfully “ran out the clock,” pushing any meaningful probe back until after this week’s election. Obama got what he wanted. Unfortunately, the mainstream media eroded its credibility even further by finding little of interest in the story, as it showed their favorite, Obama, in a bad light. Now, it’s time for a full-bore investigation of the attacks and his deceit.

To recap: the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was attacked on Sept. 11, the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. Obama quickly and repeatedly described the attacks as having been sparked by a mob angered by an obscure YouTube video that was critical of Muslims. He stuck to his improbable story even though the supposedly spontaneous mob turned out to have been armed with heavy weapons and knew how to use them, landing the very first mortar rounds directly on target.

Obama trotted out Hillary Clinton, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and others to buttress his “spontaneous mob” story line, even as a steady stream of well-placed leaks from high-ranking Administration security officials revealed that the Obama administration had known of the consulate’s vulnerability to attack but had refused to provide assistance beforehand; had watched the attacks in real time; had failed to send military reinforcements to try and save the lives of the Americans — even though we had troops nearby; and knew from the very beginning that the attack was a well-coordinated terrorist attack.

Why did Obama decide to deceive the public? Because admitting the truth would have undermined one of the few positive accomplishments of his tenure, the demise of 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden, which supposedly had al-Qaida on the run.

“Here we are two months after the fact, and the president has been basically totally silent on it, and he needs to come forward and explain what happened,” U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss told the Marietta Daily Journal late last week.

Chambliss, the senior Republican member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told the MDJ that he knew shortly after the attack that it was terrorist-related.

“I knew at that time this was a terrorist attack,” he said. “I had already issued a press release saying it was a terrorist attack. If I knew more than the president did or other folks in his administration, then something is wrong with the system, so I don’t think that’s correct. They knew it, and they still went out and tried to paint it as something other than a terrorist attack when they knew that’s exactly what it was.”

We would urge Chambliss, fellow U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) and their peers to press the administration — and press it hard — for the answers the public deserves, and whether Team Obama is settling in for another four years or packing their bags.

Comments-icon Post a Comment
No Comments Yet
*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, spam, and links to outside websites will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides