ShareThis Page

Benghazi: Another gun smokes

| Thursday, May 1, 2014, 8:55 p.m.

Perhaps this is the reason President Obama lawyered-up last month:

You might recall the departure of Mr. Obama's White House counsel. It wasn't necessarily news that Kathy Ruemmler was leaving; officials had signaled her intentions last summer. But what was news — and what now can be viewed in better context — is Ms. Ruemmler's replacement.

He's W. Neil Eggleston, the Clinton administration veteran involved in the Whitewater investigation, the probe of a sitting Agriculture secretary and the defense of former Obama aide Rahm Emanuel in the Rod Blagojevich scandal.

Now, fast on the heels of Mr. Eggleston's naming comes the smoking gun of the Obama administration's efforts to cover up its failure in the Benghazi mess that left four Americans dead, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya: An email, obtained by Judicial Watch, directly links the White House to authoring and pushing the false narrative that the attack was spontaneous, linked to an inflammatory Internet video, and not the organized terrorist attack that it was.

Incredibly, the White House is attempting to weasel its way out of its obvious lie (if not an attempt to obstruct justice), claiming the email referred to other protests in the region. Given that the Judicial Watch lawsuit that won release of the email asked specifically for Benghazi-related documents, the White House's assertion is outrageous. Bring on that congressional select committee.

Yes, Mr. President, it looks like you're going to need the services of Neil Eggleston.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.