The Benghazi scandal: Lies laid bare
Newly declassified testimony obtained by Fox News makes it clear that top military officials considered the deadly Sept. 11, 2012, assault on the U.S. outpost in Benghazi, Libya, a terrorist attack. From its outset. And just why the Obama administration publicly insisted for weeks that the attack was a protest over an obscure, U.S.-made anti-Muslim video no longer is murky.
Gen. Carter Ham, then head of the Defense Department command covering Libya, told the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation that he learned of the Benghazi assault that left U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others dead within 15 minutes after it began. He immediately informed then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who were headed for a previously scheduled session with President Obama.
Mr. Ham said he and Messrs. Panetta and Dempsey discussed the incident as a terrorist attack, not as a demonstration turned violent. Panetta even told the Senate Armed Services Committee there was “no question ... that this was a terrorist attack” — yet has resisted testifying for the House subcommittee.
Clearly, the false “protest” story was concocted for political cover during the home stretch of the 2012 presidential campaign. And with Ham's testimony yet to be contradicted by Panetta or others, the lie of Benghazi has been laid bare:
The Obama White House put politics first and truth last.
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
- Another carbon credit scheme
- James Foley, 1973-2014: Fighting on
- Tuesday essay: Sophie
- School funding canard: Money isn’t the answer