Hurricane Benghazi: A full-blown scandal
Hurricane Sandy just might have bolstered Barack Obama's re-election fortunes, diverting attention from the growing scandal that should be known as Hurricane Benghazi. That's the bad news.
The good news is that should Mr. Obama win a second term, he likely won't escape a full-blown congressional investigation of what more and more appears to be a gross dereliction of duty by the commander in chief.
And it's not unfathomable to think, should the administration not come clean, that House Republicans soon might begin discussing articles of impeachment.
Almost daily, new and unsavory details have been leaking about the Obama administration's non-response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the consulate in Libya's second-largest city that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others.
The administration hasn't been able to keep its stories straight (if they ever were straight to begin with). The stories sometimes change on a daily basis. The buses are rolling and people are being thrown under them.
The stonewalling has every appearance of being a political operation to cover up the fact that Obama & Co. left four Americans to fend for themselves in a foreign outpost against well-organized terrorist murderers. One report has it that CIA operatives on the ground in Benghazi thrice asked and thrice were denied help.
Why? Politics? Incompetence? Americans deserve an answer.
Show commenting policy
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 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.
- Crosby, Malkin dazzle fellow All-Stars
- Lure of tuition aid, gifts draw college students to ‘sugar daddy’ sites
- Woman killed in Washington Township crash
- Starkey: Rinaldo doesn’t belong in NHL
- Long-term solution for wastewater disposal eludes shale gas industry
- State’s no-bid contracts with private law firms prompt scrutiny
- Tough times are in past for Pitt senior guard Kiesel
- Pitt women’s basketball team upends Boston College
- Pitt, Louisville square off after unusually long layoffs
- Frye: Mystery rifle stirs memories
- Fleury’s relay team struggles in NHL skills competition