Yesterday marks exactly a month since the attacks on U.S. diplomatic outposts in Cairo and Benghazi. Only now is America being told — as if it didn’t instinctively know shortly after the violence — precisely what went down, and why, in the assault on the latter compound.
In a conference call more bizarre than startling in its revelations, State Department officials (but not Secretary of State Hillary Clinton) finally admitted — incontrovertibly unquestionably — that the attack in Benghazi resulting in the deaths of Chris Stevens, our Libyan ambasssador, and three others was an orchestrated terrorist strike, rather than a spontaneous riot protesting an anti-Islamic video.
Now we know that as violence erupted hours away in Cairo, all was quiet in Benghazi. Mr. Stevens had a day full of meetings, the last one — with a Turkish diplomat — ending at 8:30 p.m. Seventy minutes later, all hell broke loose, as heavily armed invaders, not rock-throwing protesters, stormed the post.
And yet, for days sliding into weeks thereafter, we were led to believe — by administration officials from President Obama and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on down — that revulsion to the video sparked the violence. Why?
Could it be that a pre-planned attack by terrorists runs demonstrably counter to the foreign-policy meme put forth by the White House — namely that Osama bin Laden is dead, al Qaeda is vanquished or at least on the run, and the world is a far better place with drones in the air and Mr. Obama in the Oval Office.
Is the administration that corrupt as to serve up this palaver, or was this ongoing line a shield for incompetence so striking that Middle East outposts were left relatively unattended on the anniversary of 9/11?
Perhaps hearings convened Wednesday by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will provide an answer.