No greater error occurred in the Benghazi attack last September 11th than the actual “response” that was marred by the unbelievable inability to properly process and report intelligence information.
Not only did the appropriate government agencies fail to provide key information in a timely matter, the White House’s assertions that it was “receiving conflicting intelligence” provides more grounds for grave concern about the leadership of the country from the very top down.
The Senate Intelligence Committee plans closed-door hearings to look into the soundness of intelligence provided to the Obama administration officials and how they deciphered it thereafter. Why was such inaccurate information communicated, if indeed that is the case?
In the meantime, not one media personality or reporter has asked President Obama the one critical question: Who within the White House sent U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice out to explain the attack as some video that had insulted Islam leading to riots?
It had to be someone in the White House who would approve the ambassador to quest on no less than five Sunday talk shows less than a week after the murders of four Americans.
It was clear from the inception of the attack that it was not a spontaneous uprising due to an anti-Muslim video. The perpetrators were too well-armed to be anything but organized terrorists and the attacks came in multiple waves.
Could it be the White House and perhaps the State Department also used the video rumor as a way to prevent any credibility gap in the White House spin of their part in decimating al Qaida in the Middle East and North Africa? Did those responsible think that the video excuse could be milked up until the election to quiet any foreign policy debacle?
After more than six weeks seeking answers, that appears now to be the best guess throughout Washington.
If so, the families of those four murdered Americans deserve to know the truth of what really happened to their loved one and who is responsible.
For that matter, so does the American people.
Why was the intelligence so conflicting? What did the White House know and why did they keep telling the media the same nonsense for weeks? Administration officials continued to speculate that the video had caused the uprising, even as intelligence increasingly showed an organized attack had taken place.
As former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said recently, “When things are unfolding very, very quickly, it’s not always easy to know what is really going on on the ground. And to my mind, the really important questions here are about how information was collected. Did the various agencies really coordinate and share intelligence in the way that we had hoped, with the reforms that were made after 9/11?”
It has now been reported by several sources that there were emails and social media posts connected to the Muslim extremist group Ansar al-Sharia, which took credit for the attack. In fact, shortly after the attack, a New York Times reporter sat with one of the self-confessed attackers in a Benghazi cafe discussing the event with the man showing no fear of being captured or killed.
The rhetoric from the White House is those responsible are being hunted down. This man was being interviewed in broad daylight blocks from the embassy burned-out compound.
Naturally the administration is reluctant to say they were lying or panicked, but why did U.N. ambassador Susan Rice continue to make statements about an uprising connected to the video? The facts run completely counter to the spin being promoted by both the White House and Obama’s re-election campaign.
* If you have enjoyed this column, may I suggest you scroll down this page and press the SUBSCRIBE box? It’s FREE. Thank you for your patronage.
** Send your comments to: email@example.com