THE APALLING APOLOGIZERS

FOR THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

Is the Republican investigation of the Benghazi attack merely a smear
campaign against a guiltless Administartion? Some would have us believe that.
It would seem then that denial has a place in Africa beyond !gypt"
#1] The State Department Accountability Review Board found that lower level
diplomats handled the security issue, not Secretary of State linton! "hat those
who want to e#culpate linton must fail to mention is a tellin$ se$ment of the
testimony that Re$ional Senior Security %fficer &ric 'ordstrom $ave to on$ress!
'ordstrom stated that the dan$er to our diplomats in (ibya was rated )*+,*,-
and that when dan$er is rated )*+,*,- only the Secretary of State can authori.e
the continued presence of our diplomats! linton /new that American diplomats
were hi$hly endan$ered!
The e#culpators must also fail to mention that the Review Board interviewed
neither #lifton nor $ordstrom nor %regory &icks the Deputy hief of 0ission,
i!e!, the Ambassador1s second2in2command! "ouldn1t these be three people that
an investi$ator would have to interview3
#4] Some say that BS and '' have accused the Republicans of )falsifyin$- and
)alterin$- the contents of emails leaked to an AB# reporter! Those who wish to
inculpate the Republicans must omit any reference to an article from 5617618
entitled, )'' e#clusive9 "hite *ouse email contradicts Ben$ha.i lea/s!- +n this
article, '' states :emphases added;, )AB 'ews notes in its report that it was
provided summaries of "hite *ouse and State Department emails, not the
emails themselves!- Say what one mi$ht about slantin$ a summary, it is not the
same as doctorin$ a te#t!
(et us compare the summaries with the e2mails9
%n 561<618, BS wrote, )%n =riday, Republicans lea/ed what they said was a
>uote from ?deputy national security adviser Ben] Rhodes9 @"e must ma/e sure
that the tal/in$ points reflect all a$ency e>uities, includin$ those of the State
Department, and we donAt want to undermine the =B+ investi$ation!1 But it turns
out that in the actual email, Rhodes did not mention the State Department! +t
read9 @"e need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant e>uities,
particularly the investi$ation!1- BS further wrote, )The Republican version
>uotes ?State Department spo/esman Bictoria] 'uland discussin$, @The
penultimate point is a para$raph tal/in$ about all the previous warnin$s
provided by the A$ency :+A; about al2CaedaAs presence and activities of al2
Caeda!1 But it turns out that in the actual email, Rhodes did not mention the
State Department! +t read9 @"e need to resolve this in a way that respects all of
the relevant e>uities, particularly the investi$ation!1-
+n other words, the disparity between the summaries and the e2mails involves the
emphasis or non2emphasis of concerns about or from the State Department!
'here is no indication that the Republicans invented the idea that the State
(epartment wanted terrorism removed from the famous )talking points.* As
'' themselves put it, )So whoever lea/ed the inaccurate information earlier
this month did so in a way that made it appear that the "hite *ouse D
specifically Rhodes D was more interested in the State Department1s concerns,
and more focused on the tal/in$ points, than the e2mail actually stated!-
Sincere wishes to e#culpate the Administartion notwithstandin$, there is no $ain2
sayin$ the fact that that terrorism was indeed e+cised from the talking points.
%n 1164E614, in an article entitled, )"ho chan$ed the Ben$ha.i tal/in$ points3,-
BS wrote, )"ho within the %bama administration deleted mention of
@terrorism1 and @al2Caeda1 from the +AAs tal/in$ points on the deadly Sept! 11
attac/s on the F!S! mission in Ben$ha.i3 The >uestion was first raised 14 days a$o
when former +A Director ,eneral David Getraeus told members of on$ress that
his ori$inal tal/in$ points cleared for public dissemination included the li/ely
involvement by terrorists and an al2Caeda affiliate! Getraeus said somebody
removed the references before they were used to inform the public!- Hust recently
:5615618;, in an article entitled, )Getraeus email obIected to Ben$ha.i tal/in$
points,- the Associated Gress wrote :emphases added;, )Then +A2Director David
Getraeus obIected to the final tal/in$ points the %bama administration used after
the deadly assault on a F!S! diplomatic post in Ben$ha.i, (ibya, because he
wanted to see more details revealed to the public, accordin$ to emails released
"ednesday by the "hite *ouse J?T]he "hite *ouse on "ednesday released KK
pa$es of emails and a sin$le pa$e of hand2written notes made by GetraeusA
deputy, 0i/e 0orell, after a meetin$ at the White House on Saturday, Sept! 15 !
%n that pa$e, 0orell scratched out from the +AAs early drafts of tal/in$ points
mentions of al2Caida, the e#perience of fi$hters in (ibya, +slamic e#tremists and
a warnin$ to the airo embassy on the eve of the attac/s of calls for a
demonstration and brea/2in by IihadistsJritics have hi$hli$hted an email by
then2State Department spo/eswoman Bictoria 'uland that e#pressed concern
that any mention of prior warnin$s or the involvement of al2Caida would $ive
con$ressional Republicans ammunition to attac/ the administration in the wee/s
before the presidential election! =i$htin$ terror was one of Gresident Barac/
%bamaAs re2election stron$ pointsJThat email was amon$ those released by the
"hite *ouse, sent by 'uland on Sept! 17 at L98K p!m! to officials in the "hite
*ouse, State Department and +A! She wrote she was concerned they could
preIudice the investi$ation and be Mabused by members to beat the State
Department for not payin$ attention to a$ency warnin$s so why do we want to
feed that either3 oncerned!M
#8] Some have said that, on the day of the attac/, K611614, it was )reasonable- to
)$uess- that the Ben$ha.i attac/ was the ou$rowth of a demonstration a$ainst an
anti2+slamic video! And some add that the Gresident disabused us of this notion
when he called it a terrorist attac/ in his Rose ,arden speech the ne#t day!
This seems to me to be somewhat overstatin$ it! At no point does the Gresident
use the word )terrorist- or )terrorism- in his Rose ,arden speech! The Gresident
definitely uses the word )terror-Nafter mentionin$ other acts of violence
:emphases added;9
)%f course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we mar/ed the
solemn memory of the K611 attac/s! "e mourned with the families who were lost
on that day! + visited the $raves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in +ra>
and Af$hanistan at the hallowed $rounds of Arlin$ton emetery, and had the
opportunity to say than/ you and visit some of our wounded warriors at "alter
Reed! And then last ni$ht, we learned the news of this attac/ in Ben$ha.i! As
Americans, let us never, ever for$et that our freedom is only sustained because
there are people who are willin$ to fi$ht for it, to stand up for it, and in some
cases, lay down their lives for it! %ur country is only as stron$ as the character of
our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us
around the $lobe! 'o acts of terror will ever sha/e the resolve of this $reat nation,
alter that character, or eclipse the li$ht of the values that we stand for!-
(et us e#amine closely the assertion that the Gresident1s Rose ,arden speech
include labelin$ the Ben$ha.i attac/ an act of terror and not the out$rowth of a
demonstration a$ainst a video! Apparently, after Gresident %bama )corrected-
this error, he )for$ot- to tell a few /ey peopleJ
&e forgot to tell #linton that the attack wasn,t caused by a video. Standin$ by
the coffin of Tyrone "oods, 'avy S&A( /illed in Ben$ha.i, she told "oods1 father
that the F!S! $overnment would brin$ the ma/er of the video to Iustice!
&e forgot to tell -$ Ambassador Susan Rice that the attack wasn,t caused by a
video. =ive days after the attac/, she repeatedly told tal/2show hosts that the
video prompted the deadly demonstrationO she did not attribute the attac/ to
terrorism!
And the President even forgot to tell himself that the attack wasnt
caused by a video! +n that very same Rose ,arden speech that (oftus says
contains the Gresident1s corrected version of the story, the Gresident says
:emphases added;, )Since our foundin$, the Fnited States has been a nation that
respects all faiths! "e reIect all efforts to deni$rate the reli$ious beliefs of
others! But there is absolutely no Iustification to this type of senseless violence!
'one! The world must stand to$ether to une>uivocally reIect these brutal acts!-
The Gresident is more e#plicit at the Fnited 'ations 18 days later :emphases
added;9 )+n every country, there are those who find different reli$ious beliefs
threatenin$O in every culture, those who love freedom for themselves must as/
how much they are willin$ to tolerate freedom for othersJThat is what we saw
play out the last two wee/s, as a crude and dis$ustin$ video spar/ed outra$e
throu$hout the 0uslim worldJThe >uestion, then, is how we respond! And on
this we must a$ree9 there is no speech that Iustifies mindless violenceJThere are
no words that e#cuse the /illin$ of innocents! There is no video that Iustifies an
attac/ on an &mbassy! -
'ow, one may as/, could %bama and linton have /nown it was terrorism3 Pes,
they could have and should have! =ormer State Department official harlene
(amb was in direct communication with the &mbassy in Tripoli the ni$ht of the
attac/! %n 1Q6K614, she testified that the State Department1s view from the
be$innin$ had been that the Ben$ha.i attac/ was terrorism!
And leave us not for$et the testimony of ,re$ory *ic/s, the Deputy hief of
0ission, i!e!, the Ambassador1s second2in2command! *e said that there was
never any doubt that it was terrorism! *e stated that he spo/e to linton durin$
the attac/ and told her that there had not been any demonstration a$ainst a video
that day!
?*ic/s1 fate is worth notin$! After the attac/, he spo/e with Republican
on$ressman Hason haffet. about it! heryl 0ills, linton1s chief of staff,
subse>uently called *ic/s, demandin$ to /now why he had i$nored her orders
and met with haffet. without a lawyer from the State Department in attendance
to RahemS monitor his testimony about Ben$ha.i! *ic/s had also challen$ed the
claim that the video was responsible for the attac/! *e described to on$ress the
response he received from his collea$ues9 )The sense + $ot was + needed to stop
the line of >uestionin$!- Sometime after the attac/, *ic/s was demoted!!!]
#7] Some have made e#culpatory remar/s vis./.vis the lac/ of an American
military rescue mission! The answer to this >uestion cannot be as cut2and2dried
as some would have us believe! +f it were easily e#plained, the testimony to
on$ress of then2Defense Secretary Ganetta and Hoint hiefs of Staff head
,eneral Dempsey would have been more easily believed! They said :emphases
added; that a rescue mission would not have been )practical- because the fli$ht of
the =21< Iets to Ben$ha.i from the airbase in Aviano, +taly, would have ta/en up
to 4Q hours! This strains credulity to a hi$h de$ree! A passen$er Iet can travel the
appro#imately <5QQ miles from 'ew Por/ to Tel Aviv in about 14 hours! "ould a
supersonic fi$hter Iet re>uire E more hours to travel 58QQ miles fewer3
onclusion9 +t seems to me stron$ly ar$uable that it is demonstrably wron$ to
paint the Republican investi$ations as a smear campai$n! +t is no less clear to me
that the Administration1s posture demonstrated an )at2all2costs- desire to conceal
the dan$ers posed by terrorists in Ben$ha.i! This posture was obviously part of
the effort to promote the Gresident as the victor over Al2Caeda! +ndeed, this may
e#plain why %bama stated in his Fnited 'ations speech on K645614, )+ too/ office
at a time of two wars for the Fnited States! 0oreover, the violent e#tremists who
drew us into war in the first place 22 %sama bin (aden, and his al Caeda
or$ani.ation 22 remained ?'ote9 GAST T&'S&] at lar$e! %sama bin (aden is
$one, and the idea that chan$e could only come throu$h violence has been buried
with him!- 'o, 0r! Gresident, that idea is not buried! But four Americans are!