I think I was far too charitable to the Obama administration two weeks ago when I accused it of shooting first and aiming later in its public response to the 9/11/12 Libyan terrorist attacks. It could be that the administration was aiming exactly where it was shooting. In other words, confusion may have been the intent because clarity would be so very damaging.
Could it be that security was lax despite two previous bombings at the same site?
Could it be that security was lax despite 13 previous security incidents in Benghazi, including an attempt to assassinate the British ambassador?
Could it actually be that — despite the facts above — the State Department refused the U.S. mission’s “repeated requests” for additional security?
The idea of our public servants dying — alone and embattled — under such circumstances is heartbreaking beyond words. If these facts are correct, the administration’s incomprehensible and contradictory spin begins to make sense. The Vegas fundraising trip makes sense. After all, why emphasize the importance of the attack and invite further scrutiny?
There is much we still don’t know, and at this point it’s quite clear that the most transparent administration in history (insert contemptuous snort here) is doing all it can to be opaque. If a Republican were in the White House, the New York Times and Washington Post would be smelling a Pulitzer for investigative reporting.
In the 2008 election, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama vied for the privilege to receive the 3:00 a.m. phone call. In this critical and tragic case, Obama’s response was to hang up and head to the casinos.