To the Editor:
Why? Why the foot-dragging reluctance to call the attack on our Benghazi, Libya, consulate terrorism? Why the flat-out turndown of a request for more security there? Are the answers to these two questions connected? Is this connection part of a larger, longer-running Obama administration mindset? The fog is starting to lift.
The House Oversight Committee’s hearings on Oct. 10 shed some sunlight. It became clear that the attack on our consulate and the murders of our ambassador and three other brave Americans were preplanned terrorism and not simply spontaneous mob reactions to an ignominious film. At first, the State Department witnesses said that they would have called the incidents just what President Obama and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice did. But then, in the face of contradicting testimony from the other two witnesses and under tough questioning, the Department of State folks were forced to agree that it was clear that there was no crowd demonstration and that it was a terrorist attack from the get-go.
In the same way, it became clear that the two witnesses who had been responsible for security in Libya were proven to be correct. Several detailed requests for additional security had been made to the State Department long before the attack. Charlene Lamb, the State Department official to whom the requests were sent, at first tried to say that these were only vague recommendations and that no denials had been issued. However, after grilling by Rep. Sandy Adams (R-Fla.), she grudgingly admitted that these requests had been made and named the two officials above her who scuttled them.
Also, why did it take three weeks to get our investigators into Benghazi? It cannot be the excuse reported by CNN that the U.S. was having trouble getting the Libyan government to issue visas. That would be a sign of inexcusable weakness.
Why all this reluctance? It seems to fit a long-term pattern. At the outset, Obama’s administration eschewed the very words “terrorist” and “terrorism” in deference to oblique euphemisms. The Fort Hood shootings are still officially labeled “workplace violence” despite the well-established relationship of the perpetrator, Nidal Hasan, with al-Qaida’s Anwar al-Awlaki.
Is it political correctness? Leading from behind? Wanting our enemies to be friendlier? Whatever the reason, it is an insidious characteristic of President Obama’s governance that must be done away with.
Board member, DeKalb County Tea Party