Connect with us

archive

Tough questions about the Libya killings the White House hasnâ??t answered yet

Why Obama is insisting on his sketchy storyline is just one pressing question emerging about the administrationâ??s handling of the Libya tragedy.

On the attacks that killed a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya earlier this month, the credibility of the White House is disintegrating by the day.

President Barack Obama gave a speech to the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday, nearly two weeks after the deadly attacks, with no mention of terrorism or the terror network Al Qaeda linked to the violence. Instead, he maintained the administrationâ??s narrative that the murdered Americans were victims of rioters outraged by an amateur anti-Muslim video he took care to denounce as â??crude and disgusting.â?ť

Yesterday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suggested a possible Al Qaeda link to the attacks, making it clear that Obamaâ??s insistence on pinning partial guilt on a filmmaker in the U.S. is not only bizarre, but also flat-out misleading.

Today, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta became the last in a line of U.S. officials to identify the Libya attack as an act of terror.

â??The reason I think pretty clearly it was a terrorist attack is because a group of terrorists obviously conducted that attack on our consulate and against individuals,â?ť Panetta said at an afternoon media briefing inside the Pentagon.

While Panetta demurred on who was behind the attacks, saying that ongoing investigations would determine that. But he confirmed that Al Qaeda remained active in the region, raising again the question of why Obama has publicly ruled its involvement out of this incident.

â??I think itâ??s fair to say that al Qaeda continues, as Iâ??ve indicated, to try to pursue its efforts in that part of the world,â?ť he said, citing the groupâ??s activity in Yemen, Somalia, and various parts of northern Africa.

White House spokesman Jay Carney finally told reporters that the administration considered the violence in Benghazi a terrorist attack yesterday, though Obama himself has avoided using the word.

Why Obama is insisting on his sketchy storyline is just one pressing question emerging about the administrationâ??s handling of the Libya tragedy. Here are some others:

Why did State Department officials lie about contracting with a private security firm to guard the embassy in Benghazi?

Why havenâ??t the FBI officials in charge of the investigation gotten to the scene of the attack yet?

Why did U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice call the embassy riots a â??spontaneous attackâ?ť before the real cause was actually known?

Why were there â??no military personnelâ?ť at the embassy?

Did the terrorists have help from the inside?

Weâ??ll be waiting for the answers.

Newsletter Signup.

Sign up to the Human Events newsletter

Written By

Hope Hodge first covered military issues for the Daily News of Jacksonville, N.C., where her beat included the sprawling Marine Corps base, Camp Lejeune. During her two years at the paper, she received investigative reporting awards for exposing a former Marine who was using faked military awards to embezzle disability pay from the government and for breaking news about the popularity of the designer drug Spice in the ranks. Her work has also appeared in The American Spectator, New York Sun, WORLD Magazine, and The Washington Post. Hodge was born near Boston, Mass., where she grew up as a lover of Revolutionary War history and fall foliage. She also discovered a love of politics and policy as a grassroots volunteer and activist on Beacon Hill. She graduated in 2009 with a degree in Politics, Philosophy, and Economics from The King's College in New York City, where she served as editor-in-chief of her school newspaper and worked as a teaching assistant when not freelancing or using student discounts to see Broadway shows. Hopeâ??s email is HHodge@eaglepub.com

Advertisement
Advertisement

TRENDING NOW:

Piers Morgan and Ilhan Omar Piers Morgan and Ilhan Omar

What’s The Difference Between Ilhan Omar and Piers Morgan?

U.S. POLITICS

Everyone’s Gone Nuts. For Power and Profit.

CULTURE

Planned Parenthood’s Leana Wen Wasn’t Woke Enough And Nor Are You

CULTURE

CNN Platforms white nationalist Richard Spencer CNN Platforms white nationalist Richard Spencer

CNN Platforms Richard Spencer.

U.S. POLITICS

archive

Tough questions about the Libya killings the White House hasn’t answered yet

On the attacks that killed a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya earlier this month, the credibility of the White House is disintegrating by the day.

President Barack Obama gave a speech to the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday, nearly two weeks after the deadly attacks, with no mention of terrorism or the terror network Al Qaeda linked to the violence. Instead, he maintained the administration’s narrative that the murdered Americans were victims of rioters outraged by an amateur anti-Muslim video he took care to denounce as “crude and disgusting.”

Yesterday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suggested a possible Al Qaeda link to the attacks, making it clear that Obama’s insistence on pinning partial guilt on a filmmaker in the U.S. is not only bizarre, but also flat-out misleading.

Today, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta became the last in a line of U.S. officials to identify the Libya attack as an act of terror.

“The reason I think pretty clearly it was a terrorist attack is because a group of terrorists obviously conducted that attack on our consulate and against individuals,” Panetta said at an afternoon media briefing inside the Pentagon.

While Panetta demurred on who was behind the attacks, saying that ongoing investigations would determine that. But he confirmed that Al Qaeda remained active in the region, raising again the question of why Obama has publicly ruled its involvement out of this incident.

“I think it’s fair to say that al Qaeda continues, as I’ve indicated, to try to pursue its efforts in that part of the world,” he said, citing the group’s activity in Yemen, Somalia, and various parts of northern Africa.

White House spokesman Jay Carney finally told reporters that the administration considered the violence in Benghazi a terrorist attack yesterday, though Obama himself has avoided using the word.

Why Obama is insisting on his sketchy storyline is just one pressing question emerging about the administration’s handling of the Libya tragedy. Here are some others:

Why did State Department officials lie about contracting with a private security firm to guard the embassy in Benghazi?

Why haven’t the FBI officials in charge of the investigation gotten to the scene of the attack yet?

Why did U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice call the embassy riots a “spontaneous attack” before the real cause was actually known?

Why were there “no military personnel” at the embassy?

Did the terrorists have help from the inside?

We’ll be waiting for the answers.

Newsletter Signup.

Sign up to the Human Events newsletter

TRENDING NOW:

Piers Morgan and Ilhan Omar Piers Morgan and Ilhan Omar

What’s The Difference Between Ilhan Omar and Piers Morgan?

U.S. POLITICS

Everyone’s Gone Nuts. For Power and Profit.

CULTURE

Planned Parenthood’s Leana Wen Wasn’t Woke Enough And Nor Are You

CULTURE

CNN Platforms white nationalist Richard Spencer CNN Platforms white nationalist Richard Spencer

CNN Platforms Richard Spencer.

U.S. POLITICS

Connect
Newsletter Signup.

Sign up to the Human Events newsletter