The truth about Benghazi
An impartial report explains what went wrong and, more important, what to do about it.
When politics seize upon tragedy, often truth is lost. When an impartial, fair assessment finally emerges, what really happened often falls somewhere between competing partisan portrayals.
Americans once again learned this lesson last week from a report on the deaths of four Americans at the consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in September.
December 26, 2012 - 6:19 AM
Obamas re-election was the only thing on this admins mind…Obama had already stated that HE decimated Al Quieda when HE killed Bin Laden..Now you have AQUieda in a planned attack against Americans which would make obama look bad…ooohhh, Lord, can`t have that, despite the FACT that teams of SEALS were within a 1 hour flight from this attack and could have helped to protect the Americans…but, Nooooooo…let them die, just don`t let the American voter know that Al Quieda still exists…This ain`t going away.
Another spin editorial from the Roanoke Times. What a surprise. Among other things not mentioned in the editorial is that the State Department sets priorities like every other bureau, agency and department in government. Benghazi should have been at the top of the State Department’s risk column, which apparently it was not. How does a site rate high strategically while its funding and planning for security rate low? This was much, much more than a systemic failure; it was a catastrophic failure of leadership from the White House down, including–I would say especially–the Secretary of State. Benghazi was a huge target ripe for the plucking; this also came out in the report. The violence went on there for more than eight hours, for crying out loud. And the lives of four Americans, including President Obama’s hand-picked ambassador, were not worth an attempt to come to their aid?
If this had happened during a Republican administration, the press would have hounded those responsible out of office within weeks, along with a few who weren’t, just for good measure. The formal inquiry would have been secondary. Most people remember the Contra scandal and Watergate–and we should. We remember those incidents because of the news they made, even though there were no lives lost. Contrast these with Benghazi and Fast and Furious. And there’s no double standard? “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain,” said the Wizard of Oz.
Wrong is wrong regardless of the party in power. The Roanoke Times does no one a service when it cherry-picks its talking points, especially here, when American citizens died going above and beyond their levels of responsibility to defend American interests, and “gave their last full measure of devotion” while doing so. Despicable.
Jeff,
Did you bother reading the 39 page report or are you just repeating what you heard on Fox News?
The truth about Benghazi is that Ambassador Stevens told Hillary’s State Dept multiple times that he was concerned about the security situation and he put in requests for more protection. He was denied.
The truth about Benghazi is, on the night of the attack, Obama and Hillary both had real time information on the ongoing battle and did nothing to stop it. The firefight lasted over 8 hours and there were jets, helicopters, gunships and an entire Navy parked within a few hundred miles of the embassy. Not one of them were sent to help put down the uprising. Many days after the attack, the embassy remained unsecured.
The truth about Benghazi is that General Petraeus’ affair, which the administration knew about for at least a couple years, conveniently became public a week before he was supposed to testify about the details of the attack.
The truth about Benghazi is that Hillary mysteriously suffered a “concussion” a few days before she was due to testify about what she knew.
The truth about Benghazi is that Obama knew on day 1 that the attack had absolutely NOTHING to do with any video, but he coninued to lie to the American people right up to the election about that fact.
Roanoke Times, you can’t handle the truth! You’ll continue to give Obama, Hillary and Rice a pass on this debacle that cost 4 Americans their lives.
I’m curious how such a conclusion was made with the Scretary of State herself dodging testifying before congress?
“Impartial report”? Ad divided as this nation is right now, I don’t think such a thing is possible.
“The report prompted four senior resignations within the State Department.”
Really? It seems not: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/benghazi_penalties_are_bogus_ncP7RZx5uTIgDPbTp5WtoN?utm_medium=rss&utm_content=International
So much for the “truth”, huh?
I’m not sure how accurate it is to call a review of State Department activities conducted by the State Department as either independent or impartial, which means it could hardly be fair. A bit like asking Enron’s accountants to audit Enron’s books. But no matter, Obama won re-election.
Do I see elephant tears. Cry Republicans cry.
#7…Yes, Obama won…too bad UVa can`t follow suit !!! Ouch !
And, once again….THIS AIN`T GOING AWAY.
9 – UVa’s problems are deeper than Obama’s….
#10 Maybe it AIN`T GOING AWAY, but your attempts at making it impeachment-worthy WILL BE LAUGHED AT.
Remember all that talk in ’08 about how Obama would unify the country, return respect to the conduct of American foreign policy, and put in place the most transparent administration in America’s history? Half of the country still sees the fraud that has been perpetrated on us. Now, the fraud has cost the lives of four Americans. This administration has four more years. It’s chilling to think of what else can happen in that amount of time, especially in the Mideast.
So, will the press attempt to bury the next catastrophe too, or will that much maligned FoxNews have to do what the others did not?
All you need to read is “An impartial report….” to dismiss this article as a waste of your time. “Impartial” is not a word which has any credibility when used in conjunction with the Roanoke Times.
Reciting the current administration’s talking points does make an editorial, but not very effective at swaying anyone’s opinion. Placing blame on funding, citing an “independent” report which the Times seems to try to pass off as unbiased, and pointing out some senior staffing that supposedly resigned but are still reportedly working for the government is laughable and deflecting accountability. This should not be about Democrats vs. Republicans. It should be about protecting American officials in foreign countries that are working in their assigned duty stations. The Times is partially correct however on one point. It was politicized. It was the Obama administration trying to protect its political talking points on terrorism prior to the election. It was four Americans that should have been protected, not President Obama’s agenda.
Who cut funding for embassy security? I believe it was the Republican House. Ironic the deaths of four individuals who volunteered to serve in a war zone are far more important to the Right than the twenty innocent first graders slaughtered at Sandy Hook Elementary. Oh, right, you can’t blame Obama for that one…move along, nothing to see here. Fox and their ilk should be banned from the airwaves.
Reciting the current right wing talking points doesn’t sway many opinions either. The divisive, dismissive and disdainful posts made here are not a conversation, they are harassment, they are antagonistic, they are not helpful, but they most certainly are not a discussion.
Did some folks only wake up to politics in this nation when President Obama was elected in November 2008? It certainly reads that way.
Did Nixon ever take any blame? Did Clinton? Did Reagan? Has Bush? Blame is not something that climbs the ladder. Not in a business and not in DC. Did you really expect the President to be in on staffing and security details at any embassy, consulate or outpost? Did you expect the CIA to divulge their presence and explain their mission? Did you really think Hillary’s “head would roll”? Then you only prove your naivete, selective memory and a huge helping of denial.
This report, chaired by two folks not “Obamanistas”, tells the truth of the failures and points to solutions for a better system. At best, we can hope Hillary is truly implementing them and that the funding and support for the needed changes will be there for these critical missions.
Since you all are going on and on about Obama, and blaming him in ways you did not blame Reagan for the Beirut barracks or Bush for the Iraq lies or paid any attention to the other deaths over the years in foreign service, I find it hard to connect that with your claim that Obama’s “agenda”, or anything else was “protected”. Not liking the truth is not the same as it not being the truth.
#16 – “Oh, right, you can’t blame Obama for that one…move along, nothing to see here.”
Really, Art?
http://www.washingtonguardian.com/washingtons-school-security-failure
As far as banning Fox from the airwaves, I’m glad to see how quick you are to ignore the First Amendment when it doesn’t suit you.
the truth, not from this administration. fear the fox!
Michael, do you even read what you link? The COPS program ended in 2005. The others were allowed to lapse by a Republican-controlled House. Nice spin, though. Incidentally, your source is headed by John Solomon, former executive editor of the Washington Times. Certainly no bias there.
#20 _ the article was not about the COPS program, Art. Do YOU even read what I link?
As far as being biased, funny how you accept the biased links provided by the Libs here.
Now you’re being silly, Michael. Getting back on subject, Behghazi is yet another Republican distraction to cover up their inability to govern. House squabbling places our economy in jeopardy, Speaker Boehner should stop engaging in personal power struggles within his own caucus and pass meaningful legislation extending tax cuts for those making less than $250,000.
#21 Michael, what does this part of the article you linked to say?
“The biggest funding program for school violence was the COPS in Schools program, which Ray said provided $811 millions to communities to hire resource officers who worked inside the schools. The targeted funding for schools was ended in 2005 but police are still allowed to apply for broader police hiring money from the general COPS program and then use it to hire school resource officers if they want, Ray said.”
Now what was that about the article not being about COPS? We’ll wait for your reply.
#22 – Not silly at all, Art. Libs here provide biased links every day and no one questions them.
As far as Benghazi being a “Republican distraction”, is it a distraction to want to get to the truth? Is it a distraction to want to discover why the government changes it’s story every time you turn around?
Just look at how it was reported that four officials resigned…which turned out to be yet another lie.
“Lie” is a strong word. It is telling how easily it is used when one disagree with someone’s politics and how hard it is to admit to when one agrees with someone’s politics.
The bottom line is that we will never believe we were told the truth by Bush and you will never believe you were told the truth by Obama. Let’s call it what it is and move on. This same song and dance each day gets old.
#25 – Being told four people have resigned when it isn’t true has nothing to do with politics, Sandi. It was a lie.
How many other lies are involved with Benghazi? Not wanting to tarnish your idolization of Obama, I think you’re afraid to seek the truth.
“Lie” is the word most frequently used to condemn the actions of any conservative nowadays. It has taken almost four years for conservatives to begin using this word with any regularity with regard to the current administration. The tipping point has arrived with Fast and Furious, then Benghazi and the orchestrated cover-up that has occurred during this last election.
I suspect liberals are going to see what conservatives have experienced since 2000. And the administration is going to help this along, because they are under the illusion that they actually have a mandate to rule.
At the very least, we are seeing that our current president and his hand-picked crew are as good–if not better–at playing fast and loose with the truth as any that America’s political class has produced from either party. This is nothing to celebrate regardless of which side of the political aisle one is on.
There are no illusions, Obama IS under a mandate. George Bush decided that in 2004. Maybe you just missed the memo.
I do not think history reflects on this as even remotely the most dishonest, corrupt, ineffective or failed of Presidencies. You are merely projecting and wishful thinking.
Congress has been an abysmal failure and their approval rating proves it. Funny how you want to blame Obama and ignore the failure of Congress. You know that they can even override a veto. They run this country. THAT is the problem, not Obama. They are serving a master that is not us. It has not been us for at least two decades. What part of that are you missing?
Blaming Obama, “lazy” people or anyone else is just window dressing. Get real.
Being told that this was an “embassy attack” when it was clearly a CIA operation USING diplomatic cover is pretty alarming too, but nevermind that right?
“The timeline offered by senior intelligence officials Thursday also disclosed for the first time that two of the four Americans killed in the attack were actually CIA intelligence contractors – and not State Department security personnel, as they were previously identified.
Overall, the CIA’s depiction of the events that led to the death of Ambassador Christopher Stevens offers new insight into US operations in the eastern Libyan city. It suggests that the small and lightly secured diplomatic mission served as a kind of cover for a larger but covert US intelligence presence, centered in an “annex” located about a mile from the consulate. This intelligence-gathering was focused on an area where Islamist extremists and Al Qaeda-affiliated militants were known to operate.”
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2012/1102/Benghazi-fallout-CIA-reveals-secret-intelligence-hub-was-nearby
The failures in Benghazi will prevent any future political aspirations for Clinton IMO and whether the four found culpable will be fired or allowed to resign, or be demoted or whatever is just a smokescreen anyway. Nothing will bring back the dead and change what was done wrong.
I cannot escape the fact that the same people out for blood and scalps over the failed CIA opps in Benghazi are the same ones demanding we slow down and not do anything rash in the wake of the slaughter of children in Newtown. There is a dichotomy I cannot fathom there.
#28 – So Obama is not responsible for anything done by anyone under his ‘leadership’.
Got it.
Instead of a “The Buck Stops Here” sign on his desk, his says “Don’t look at me! I didn’t do it!”
In the overall scheme, Obama is responsible for everything that happens on his watch, as was Bush, as will be whomever is next. In the day to day operations such as embassy security and who sits at what desk? Not likely. There is responsible and there is politically responsible. Just like there is plain speaking and politically speaking. You can insult me and dumb it down until you grasp the reality of it, but in a nutshell, yes.
We did not look at Reagan for lack of response to the Beirut barracks bombing…
We did not look at Reagan for Arms for hostages…
We did not look at Clinton….oh wait, we looked at Clinton for breathing.
We did not look at Bush for ignoring warnings before 9/11…
We did not look at Bush for the lies about Iraq…
We do not look at Obama for a CIA mission using diplomats as cover…
The Good Lord knows you have tried though.
Ultimately, the Ambassador in any country should know the limitations of security in the host country. The 180+ page “declassified” report released by the Republicans, that placed operatives in Libya in danger, contained daily reports from Ambassador Stevens. His report for 9-11 did not contain any references to security concerns. It was his decision to leave the well guarded embassy in Tripoli to travel to Benghazi.
Romney jumped on the tragedy for political gain and it backfired on him. McCain and company climbed on the bandwagon and kept the misinformation campaign in high gear. At no point did they acknowledge the cuts made by their party to security funding for our embassies worldwide. All of the recommendations from the report require more funding that was previously denied. For those that still insist on finger pointing, take a look in the mirror, your party is running this country in the ground!
“they are under the illusion that they actually have a mandate to rule. “
Obama is the first president to win back to back elections with 51% of the vote since Dwight Eisenhower. Sounds like a mandate to me.
Anyone? Bueller??