- The Washington Times - Tuesday, May 14, 2013


We’ve seen then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton ask, with what seemed like feigned exasperation “What difference, at this point, does it make?” when asked about the State Department’s talking points mischaracterizing the Benghazi, Libya, attack of last September. Apparently, it makes a lot of difference, since the CIA’s talking points were revised 12 times before Ambassador Susan E. Rice delivered them. Had the attack indeed resulted from a spontaneous, unpredictable demonstration, then the administration’s doing nothing in preparation for such violence would be excusable. And such a demonstration run amok may well not have justified mounting a potentially messy military counterforce response.

But the fact is that Benghazi personnel informed the State Department almost immediately that our consulate was under a coordinated terrorist attack and the administration, paralyzed by fear that President Obama’s re-election might be somehow jeopardized, did absolutely nothing to save our fellow Americans. The attack lasted seven hours, but it might as well have lasted seven days, because no rescue attempt was mounted, which effectively consigned our people to death. In military parlance, this is callous dereliction of duty. In civilian terms, this falls under “high crimes and misdemeanors,” rendering Mr. Obama eminently impeachable. Our president either knew or should have known of the Benghazi attack.


Santa Rosa, Calif.

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times is switching its third-party commenting system from Disqus to Spot.IM. You will need to either create an account with Spot.im or if you wish to use your Disqus account look under the Conversation for the link "Have a Disqus Account?". Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide