As the Libya scandal continues to unfold, let’s step back for a moment before we deal with more rhetoric from the Administration and consider what we now know. After attacks on our diplomatic installations in Libya, a death threat to our ambassador and the attempted assassination of the British ambassador, our ambassador and those responsible for his security and the security of our embassy personnel requested more security (duh). The State Department not only denied this request, security was actually lessened. On the day of the attack, until the attack actually began, there were no protestors. In fact, until the actual attack began, when men breached the compound armed with sophisticated weapons, the streets had been deserted. At the time of the attack, a senior State Department official was actually on the phone getting a blow by blow description of the attack. The next day, the head of the CIA briefed congressmen, indicating it was either a terrorist attack or the result of a protest gone bad due to the now infamous anti-Muslim video. Three days later, another senior State Department official testified before Congress that the attack was an attack by terrorists, a position the State Department has never wavered from. Five days after the attack, the U.N. ambassador went on Sunday news programs indicating categorically that it was a protest gone bad based on the video. The Prexy made similar statements. In recent testimony before Congress, two security experts who had been on the scene testified under oath confirming the request for additional security by the ambassador and the State Department’s refusal to honor that request. In the vice presidential debate, Joe Biden, the current veep, indicated in response to a question by the commentator that first, “we” (presumably he meant himself and the President) were unaware of the request for more security and two, their story about the attack being a protest over the video was based on the intelligence they received. In order to accept Biden’s first point, that he and the President didn’t know about the request for more security, it is necessary to accept the premise that no one in the State Department briefed them regarding the request. And that no one in the State Department advised anyone on the White House national security team. If that is the case, then it also means that neither Obama or Biden were concerned enough about the situation in Libya to take the time to find out what was going on there. Although it has been widely reported that Obama does not take foreign affairs briefings in person, preferring to read summaries, it stretches credibility to believe that his written briefings wouldn’t have included some reference to the volatile situation in Libya. And if he was even remotely aware of the dangers there, at a minimum, he was negligent in failing to intervene with his Secretary of State, assuming you accept Biden’s version of the events. On Biden’s second point, it seems clear that the attack was a carefully orchestrated terrorist attack. Even assuming that at least some in the intelligence community were unsure of this, why did the administration take the position that it was not a terrorist attack instead of simply saying they were investigating the matter? Why would the President not investigate himself by following up with the State Department to determine their take on the matter? Why would the President tell the American people that it wasn’t a terrorist attack and send the U.N. ambassador to the media with what we now know and the President should have recognized was a false narrative? And why, when it became increasingly obvious that it was a terrorist attack, would the President continue to spin the video narrative? To add insult to injury, a senior official in the President’s re-election campaign embarrassed herself on national television by claiming that the media attention now being increasingly paid to the scandal is all Rom Mitney’s fault! One of the principles that has guided our foreign policy is that it takes precedence over political considerations. Americans are dead as a result of what could be interpreted as criminal negligence by this Administration in failing to provide adequate security for our personnel in Libya. And despite the veep’s rhetoric, it is obvious that this Administration has insulted those who died and all of us by their pathetic attempts to cover up their sorry role in this tragedy. In the last debate, the Prexy claimed that in his remarks immediately after the attack, he referred to what happened in Benghazi as a terrorist attack. The liberal commentator injected herself into the debate by chastising Romney for claiming otherwise citing the transcript of the President’s remarks. In reality, that transcript showed that after mentioning Benghazi, the President concluded with a general statement about combating terror. And if, as he claimed, he was then acknowledging it was a terrorist attack, why did he proceed to go on his favorite talk shows, as well as appearing before the U.N., claiming that the attack in Benghazi was a result of a protest sparked by the infamous video.
In the final analysis, those “at the top” are responsible for the failings of their employees at least everywhere except apparently Washington D. C. Even with H. Clinton’s pathetic attempt to save the Administration by pointing out the obvious, that as Secretary of State, she is responsible for security, it seems that every time there is a scandal (remember “Fast and Furious?”), the President runs for cover claiming he didn’t know about it even though he finally admitted in the last debate that ultimately he is responsible, a conclusion even he couldn’t spin. And if my friends on the left think that I’m being partisan, if Rom Mitney is elected, he should and will be held to the same standard of accountability.