- Unbeliebable: White House turns Bieber petition response into immigration screed
- Obama signs law denying Iran ambassador’s visa, but says law is ‘advisory’
- Mich. judge to laughing convicted killer: ‘I hope you die in prison’
- Man charged in Kansas City-area highway shootings
- Keystone XL pipeline still on hold after State Dept. decision
- Fla. man charged with killing 16-month-old son to play Xbox undisturbed
- Drones from the deep: Pentagon develops ocean-floor attack robots
- Michigan mayor slaps back atheists’ try to erect ‘reason station’ at city hall
- PHILLIPS: Where is the conservative establishment?
- 7.5-magnitude earthquake shakes southern Mexico
EDITORIAL: Blind in Benghazi
Congressional inquiry closes in on truth about 2012 terrorist attack
Mystery continues to swirl around the Obama administration's failure to respond to the terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya, but some questions are being answered.
The House Armed Services Committee on Monday released preliminary findings from its inquiry into the Sept. 11, 2012, murder of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
The committee majority faults the State Department for leaving our diplomatic personnel unprotected, citing a blindness toward the "growing Islamic threat to American interests in the region."
President Obama set the tone for downplaying Islamic radicalism early on when he went to Cairo to make a groveling apology for America.
Hillary Clinton, then secretary of state, carried this tune, as did the military. There were no armed drones, no AC-130 gunships nor any F-16 fighter aircraft at the ready anywhere near Benghazi.
No help was sent during the siege, the committee found, because no help was available. "Administration decision makers were apparently reluctant to discuss publicly the deteriorating security situation in Libya or make changes in the U.S. diplomatic presence or military force posture that might have mitigated the dangers there," the report found.
Instead of boosting security in Benghazi in advance of Sept. 11 date, the State Department did the opposite. In fact, "in the weeks before the attack there was a decrease in the modest U.S. military presence there," the report noted.
With the U.S. security team cut from 16 to four members, the stage was set for disaster. In the committee's opinion, given the state of play on that fateful day, there was nothing more the military could have done that would have made a difference.
There was no "stand down" order issued that kept forces from joining the seven-hour battle in Benghazi, contrary to earlier reports.
While the committee findings help bring clarity to events leading up to the attack, many questions remain about its aftermath. Why was the White House so reluctant to inform the American people that the assault on the compound was a preplanned terrorist attack?
Who deleted references to terrorism from the White House talking points? Who decided that an unknown video floating on YouTube would take the blame for what happened?
The report does not delve into these issues beyond noting that top military officials were well aware of the obvious, that this was a terrorist incident.
"General [Carter F. Ham] and others also reported to the committee that they readily believed the events in Benghazi to be an attack, not a protest against a YouTube video that had spun out of control," the report noted.
Mrs. Clinton famously pushed back against congressional investigators trying to get to the bottom of a number of these questions. "What difference, at this point, does it make?" she asked.
Knowing exactly what happened makes a great deal of difference. The State Department has already boosted security in light of Benghazi. Thirty-five embassies that had no Marine units now have them, and other measures have been taken to boost the defensive capabilities for diplomatic facilities in "high risk" countries.
Until the outstanding questions are answered, we won't know whether the administration understands the seriousness of the Islamic militant threat. The sooner the White House opens up and allows this investigation to conclude, the sooner this tragedy and scandal can be put behind us.
About the Author
- EDITORIAL: More Lerner smoking-gun emails at IRS
- EDITORIAL: Republicans finally fight back in phony 'war on women'
- EDITORIAL: Mark Warner running scared?
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Recent Brandeis choices disgraceful
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: A Carson 'apology' to Obama
Latest Blog Entries
TWT Video Picks
Women losing coverage under Obamacare, too
Get Breaking Alerts
- Scalia to students on high taxes: At a certain point, 'perhaps you should revolt'
- Former Ranger breaks silence on Pat Tillman death: I may have killed him
- Special Forces' suicide rates hit record levels casualties of 'hard combat'
- Feds approve powdered alcohol; 'Palcohol' available later this year
- Justice at last: 'Evil woman' outed for grabbing girl's game ball
- Army goes to war with National Guard, seizes Apache attack helicopters
- Inside China: Marine's comment on islands draws sharp Chinese response
- 'Deport Bieber' petition draws no comment from White House
- EDITORIAL: Mark Warner running scared?
- Harry Reid blasts Bundy ranch supporters as 'domestic terrorists'