The Benghazi hearing: Sunlight ahead
A much clearer picture of the Sept. 11, 2012, debacle at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that left four Americans dead, including our ambassador to Libya — and the Obama administration's dishonest, self-serving misrepresentation of that organized terrorist act — comes Wednesday.
That's when the House Oversight & Government Committee will hold a hearing titled “Benghazi: Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage.” Beyond what's already known — including then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's April 2012 approval of reduced U.S. diplomatic security in Libya — expect:
• Details about watering down initial talking points to remove mentions of al-Qaida and terrorism in favor of the spurious “spontaneous protest against an anti-Muslim U.S. video” line. The Weekly Standard's Stephen F. Hayes writes that emails sent during that process make it “clear that senior administration officials engaged in a wholesale rewriting of intelligence assessments about Benghazi in order to mislead the public.”
• Testimony from Gregory N. Hicks, then-deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya, who “thought it was a terrorist attack from the start,” according to The Washington Times.
• Evidence of administration threats to the careers of Mr. Hicks and fellow whisteblower witnesses.
Wednesday's hearing will help ensure that the administration can keep neither its Benghazi bungling nor the American people — who deserve the full, appalling truth — in the dark.
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.
- The silent treatment in Ford City: Forgotten words
- Saturday essay: Deer of fools
- A green-tip assault: ATF’s end run
- Seeds of a new endeavor: Connellsville Area Garden Club’s latest plans
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- SCI Greensburg: A dubious deal
- China targets Hawaii? ‘Frenemy’ alert
- Sunday pops
- The Pennsylvania Legislature’s slush fund