Another Benghazi lie exposed
By quietly awarding medals to two special operations commandos, the Obama administration has further undermined the credibility shredded by its false initial account of the deadly Sept. 11, 2012, al-Qaida terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya.
The Washington Times reports exclusively that though the administration maintains no special operations forces were in range to be dispatched from outside Libya to aid the Americans under attack, two members of an eight-man special ops unit that was in Tripoli that night volunteered for a hasty rescue flight with private security contractors. They took part in the final Benghazi firefight and have been decorated for bravery.
Sources “directly familiar with the attack” tell The Times that the administration didn't acknowledge these two commandos' heroism publicly because they were in Tripoli on a sensitive anti-terror mission without an agreement in place to authorize their presence there. Then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta mentioned “a Tripoli-based security team” that deployed to Benghazi in congressional testimony, but didn't say why they were in Tripoli or who went with them to Benghazi.
It's all part of the haze of obfuscation and misdirection in which the Obama administration, not wanting to rock its re-election boat, shrouded the truth about Benghazi and its failings there. And the truth about these two commandos makes its lack of readiness to defend U.S. diplomatic personnel there no less appalling.
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.