The Benghazi attack: No more lies
Regarding the circumstances surrounding the terrorist attack on a U.S. consulate in Libya last month that left this nation's ambassador and three others dead, the Obama administration is:
c.) living in a parallel universe, or
d.) all of the above
Go to the head of the class if you chose “all of the above.”
We're all familiar with the administration's first narrative of the Sept. 11 incident — it was the spontaneous reaction of a rioting mob upset over a low-budget anti-Muslim film. But that fiction began to unravel almost immediately.
There was no “protest,” only well-armed terrorists in a well-coordinated attack. Yet for weeks the White House stuck to its lie. And even now, after being forced to concede its tall tale was fact-bereft, many of Obama's acolytes have not stopped lying.
Among the latest, during Thursday night's vice-presidential debate, Joe Biden insisted that the consulate did not request additional security. That's a lie, as the congressional testimony of four State Department officials proves.
Then there's Obama campaign mouthpiece Stephanie Cutter, insisting that the unbelievable Benghazi attack narrative is an issue only because the Republican presidential ticket has made it one. How stupid is she and how stupid does she think the American people are?
Caught up in its repeated lies, the Obama administration has created a parallel universe. Where and when does it end?
In the polling booth on Nov. 6.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.