The Benghazi scandal: Obama's buck
Amid rightful public anger over the planned terrorist attack on the U.S. outpost in Benghazi, Libya, one key player in the ongoing obfuscation has been all but excused from accountability for what he said — not to select media outlets but to a forum of world leaders.
Two weeks after the Sept. 11, 2012, attack and more than a week after U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice blamed the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans on an anti-Muslim video, President Obama picked up the very same ball and ran with it before the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 25.
Emphasizing that “we must speak honestly about the deeper causes of the crisis,” Mr. Obama specifically noted “a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.”
On this Obama minced no words: “There's no video that justifies an attack on an embassy.”
Except the video didn't justify anything. What occurred was a premeditated terrorist attack. And the U.S. knew so immediately afterward, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., confirmed on Sunday. Why, the administration simply was being “cautious,” she said.
So cautious, in fact, that Obama throughout his U.N. speech used the word “terrorist” just once — in reference to groups supported by the Iranian government and in no relation to the Benghazi attack.
What unraveled in Benghazi reached the top of Team Obama. That's where attention must focus. And that's where the buck must stop.
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 Thursday wrap
- James Foley, 1973-2014: Fighting on
- School funding canard: Money isn’t the answer
- More foreign aid is no answer to border problem
- Recasting the EPA: Devolving power to the states
- Public records: Updates needed
- Sunday pops
- Rick Perry’s indictment: The real abuse
- Another carbon credit scheme
- Tuesday essay: Sophie