Chicago Tribune | Getting to the bottom of Benghazi

I hadn’t planned to add to the cacophony generated by the terrorist raid at Benghazi that resulted in the deaths of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, U.S. Foreign Service information management officer Sean Smith and former Navy SEAL commandos Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. After all, Obama apologists have so eloquently explained good reasons for dropping the whole thing:

•Only wacko right-wingers want an investigation. Well, there you go; if those loony Republicans and their ilk — like loudmouthed Rush Limbaugh — want something, we must automatically oppose it. You don’t even have to know why they want an investigation. Just the fact that they want it is reason enough to oppose it.

• It’s offensive. President Barack Obama said he "took offense" to suggestions that he or his administration tried to hide the truth about the raid. "Offending," as the high priests of correctness have informed us, is the gravest and darkest of all sins.

• Thou shalt not "go after" U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice for maintaining the fiction that the raid was prompted by an insulting YouTube video and not a planned terrorist attack. Sayeth the president: " …for them to go after the U.N. ambassador, who had nothing to do with Benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received, and to besmirch her reputation is outrageous." He added: "But when they go after the U.N. ambassador, apparently because they think she’s an easy target, then they’ve got a problem with me." How gallant of the president to defend Rice.


(18853 Posts)