Was Attack Covered Up?
Romney Must Demand The Truth
Within 24 hours of the violence that claimed the lives of Ambasssador Chris Stevens and three others, evidence was coming to light that the attack was pre-planned rather than a spontaneous response to an anti-Islamic video. And not only this, but also that al Qaeda’s pawprints were all over it. The Daily Beast’s Eli Lake reported that intelligence intercepts indicated that one al Qaeda affiliate boasted to another, on the day following the attack, that it was responsible for the mayhem.
Nonetheless, for the better part of a week, administration officials ceaselessly trumpeted the video as the fuse that ignited the Benghazi firestorm. On no less than five TV talk shows five days later, Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, repeated this explanation, namely that the attack was “not premeditated.”
Eventually, on Sept. 20, nine days after the violence, White House flack Jay Carney finally owned up to what all evidence pointed to — that the attack was premeditated. This was followed by a vague statement from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence that seemed to suggest initial reports from Benghazi indicated a “spontaneous” response.
The question, of course, is: Why such obfuscation? That’s the query Mr. Romney should be prepared to ask.
Could it be the administration was caught with its guard woefully down on the anniversary of 9/11? That was the crux of a weekend story in The Washington Post, which said proper security measures had not been taken despite rising unrest in that part of Libya.
The ball is in Mr. Romney’s court.