Investigating Benghazi: Another step
A new report by GOP members of five House committees brings the full truth about the Sept. 11 debacle at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, closer than ever. And the clearer picture it paints is anything but flattering to the Obama administration and its State Department.
The report places blame for failing to prevent the terrorist attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans squarely on the White House and State, including Hillary Clinton, then the department's secretary — not on U.S. intelligence agencies or the Pentagon.
The GOP report also finds that Team Obama deceived the public after the attack by portraying it as a spontaneous protest against an anti-Muslim video, then falsely spinning that deception as protecting a classified FBI investigation. The real aim was evading criticism for lax consulate security.
Mrs. Clinton, State and the White House ignored ample intelligence warning of danger to the consulate, yet allowed security there to be reduced — and didn't even try to check the status of consulate personnel during and just after the attack, according to the report.
The full Benghazi truth requires even more evidence, including testimony from attack survivors seemingly sequestered by the administration. But this GOP report is a major step toward full disclosure — and full accountability — both of which the American people must continue to demand.
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.
- U.N. Watch: Another jaded ‘inquiry’
- The revolving door: Washington’s ‘gift’
- Expanding Medicaid: Gov.-elect Wolf embraces a false premise
- Sunday pops
- The regulatory state: EPA picks a fight
- The Box
- Holiday Gift Club: The spirit of the season
- Saturday essay: A manger’s light
- The Thursday wrap
- Pension reform should not be linked to a natural gas extraction tax
- Ford City’s solution: Good side to cop cuts