Posts Tagged ‘Benghazi’

Investigate the Benghazi Crimes Themselves

Whenever a heinous crime is committed, it has become common to hear politicians and pundits say something like, “The first thing we have to do is make sure something like this never happens again.” While that remark may reflect an important goal, it’s a long term goal and not “the first thing” that should be done. If your house were burglarized, would you be happy to hear the police say that, or would you rather have them focus first on finding, arresting, and prosecuting the burglar.

So what’s the story with the murders of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods? It seems as though some people want to leave the Benghazi murders behind as long as we’ve taken steps to prevent another such attack. About four months after the murders, Hillary Clinton famously asked “What difference does it make?” suggesting that it was ancient history and not worthy of further investigation. How would you like to hear those words from the police investigating your house burglary?

In that hypothetical burglary, if your neighbors had been in a position to witness the break-in, wouldn’t you want the police to question them? In Benghazi, there were more than four people present. There are survivors, yet for some reason, the survivors have not been interviewed. This fact appears to be part of what many see as an administration cover-up.

As important as it is to unravel a cover-up, it’s at least as important to understand the attack itself. The attackers need to be apprehended, preferably alive, and grilled on how and why they did what they did. Many questions remain to be answered: Why wasn’t there better security? Why has there been so little progress toward apprehending the killers? Why hasn’t “the most transparent administration ever” been more forthcoming in response to congressional requests for information? Why weren’t military assets mobilized to aid the defenders? Where was the commander-in-chief while the attack was underway? and so on. There remain ample reasons to convene a special committee with subpoena power to uncover the whole story of what happened and why.

Benghazi Consulate Attack

What’s the big deal about how the administration chose to describe the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya? First of all, a consulate is considered the sovereign territory of the country whose consulate it is. That makes the attack not just a far away act of violence in North Africa. It is as much an attack on the United States as if it occurred in Washington, D.C.

Okay, but everyone knows there’s a lot of unrest in that part of the world. Sometimes a mob gets out of hand and resorts to violence and property destruction. Sometimes people get killed. It’s unfortunate, but passions get so roiled up sometimes that things like that happen. And did you see the movie trailer that criticized the prophet Mohammad? Some Coptic Christian went way over the line with that one. No wonder Muslims gathered together to protest.

Yes, but not even Occupy Wall Street shows up with Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPG’s) and mortars. Military experts who are in a position to know described this as a well-planned and well-executed military style attack that killed four Americans and didn’t just damage the consulate, but destroyed it. Yet, for days, the administration’s representatives, notably Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, UN Ambassador Susan Rice, and press secretary Jay Carney insisted that it was the unfortunate result of a spontaneous uprising to protest a video. It certainly wouldn’t have been politically helpful to call it what it was, yet another terrorist attack against the USA on President Obama’s watch.

Describing the attack as a spontaneous response to an offensive video is like calling an artillery barrage “the disposition of unexploded ammunition.”