When The White House Left America's Best Behind
Here are five questions about Benghazi that an effective cross-examination would address.
Kayleigh McEnany
“It’s 3 a.m., and your children are safe and asleep. But there’s a phone in the White House, and it’s ringing.” So began the infamous “3 a.m. advertisement,” a much-criticized ad by Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign to place doubt in the minds of voters regarding Barack Obama’s capability of handling an imminent national security threat.
In this rare moment of foresight, Clinton was right – Obama proved himself incapable of protecting Americans abroad. But so did she.
The Business Case For AI At Your Law Firm
On September 11, 2012, four Americans died in Benghazi, Libya after a series of incompetent, foolish, and amateur decisions by the Obama administration. Both the preliminary decision-making and real-time choices set the stage for the bloodshed that transpired on that fateful day.
By now, some of you are probably rolling your eyes, or worse, have stopped reading altogether at the mere mention of “Benghazi.” This is because the left has succeeded at politicizing the murderous attacks, acting as if the whole affair was some contrived right-wing conspiracy.
U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods. (AP Photo/U.S. State Department)
Unfortunately for Tyrone Wood, Glen Doherty, Sean Smith, and Ambassador Chris Stevens, the four men who lost their lives, this means that many will never learn of the heroism that took place that day and the incompetence that led to this tragic loss of life.
Sponsored
Navigating Financial Success by Avoiding Common Pitfalls and Maximizing Firm Performance
Legal AI: 3 Steps Law Firms Should Take Now
Is The Future Of Law Distributed? Lessons From The Tech Adoption Curve
Is The Future Of Law Distributed? Lessons From The Tech Adoption Curve
At 9:35 p.m. local time, a group of 125 men, armed with automatic weapons and RPGs, charged the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, shouting “Allahu Akbar” and hurling grenades. A consulate security agent immediately “alerted the annex U.S. quick reaction security team stationed nearby, the Libyan 17th February Brigade, Embassy Tripoli, and the Diplomatic Security Command Center in Washington.” Ambassador Stevens likewise called for help, phoning Deputy Chief of Mission Gregory Hicks.
Help never came.
Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, and Scott Strickland fled to the safe room as the attackers stormed the gates and eventually the ambassador’s residence. But the metal confines of the safe room could not effectively deter the attackers. Armed with diesel cans, the terrorists doused the room with gasoline, setting fire to the compound and essentially smoking the three men out of the safe room. Strickland fled through a window, but Stevens and Smith were not so fortunate.
Meanwhile, at the CIA annex just down the road, the Global Response Staff (GRS), a team of highly trained former Special Forces, learned of the attack almost immediately and were prepared to respond within five minutes. Despite their readiness, the top CIA officer in Benghazi inexplicably preempted them from coming to the ambassador’s rescue. GRS sat for 20 minutes in their vehicles, armed and ready to go, as they listened to a diplomatic security agent plead, “If you guys do not get here, we are going to die!” Despite continual orders to “stand down,” the courageous commandos finally rushed to the consulate, in defiance of their superior.
GRS’s bold and selfless rescue attempt came too late – though they were able to recover some survivors, GRS found Smith’s body and was unable to locate Ambassador Stevens, who was later found dead.
Sponsored
The Business Case For AI At Your Law Firm
Early Adopters Of Legal AI Gaining Competitive Edge In Marketplace
As GRS expected, the night was far from over. Not only did the consulate come under attack, but the annex did too. GRS successfully held the attackers off until morning, when a small team of just seven arrived from Tripoli to assist them. Upon arrival, the annex came under attack once more. Though these U.S. warriors were highly skilled, they were vastly outnumbered. Unable to survive this final attack, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty fell victim to mortars. The remaining American personnel successfully evacuated.
This brief account does not do justice to the full tale of what happened on September 11, 2012. Nonetheless, pressing questions persist. While the administration might be immune from prosecution for its failures, here are five questions an effective cross-examination would address. Each one becomes all the more vague and puzzling upon inspection.
(1) Why were American personnel in Benghazi?
In March of 2011, a coalition, including the U.S., began airstrikes in Libya. Though not the stated goal, these strikes aimed to topple Muammar Gaddafi’s regime. At the hand of the U.S., Gaddafi – a former US ally – fell, leaving a vacuum that was quickly filled by Islamic radicals, who raided the country’s weapon stash.
Radicalism infused the former Libyan state and a black market for weapons developed, making Benghazi, Libya one of the most dangerous places in the world. Realizing this, most countries evacuated, shutting down their embassies and leaving no presence in the city. The U.S., however, remained, making America “the last flag flying.”
Completely out of touch with the impending danger, Clinton naively sought to make the U.S. presence permanent. Ambassador Steven’s top deputy, Gregory Hicks, testified:
According to Stevens, Secretary Clinton wanted Benghazi converted into a permanent constituent post… Timing for this decision [to visit the region on Sept. 11] was important. Chris needed to report before Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year, on the … political and security environment in Benghazi.
Why were American personnel made to be sitting ducks?
(2) Why were numerous requests for security denied?
Not only were American personnel in fact sitting ducks, they were well aware of this. A classified cable released in the aftermath of the attacks revealed that the compound held an “emergency meeting” in the weeks before the attacks to discuss al-Qaeda camps in the city and the compound’s inability to withstand a “coordinated attack” due to “limited manpower, security measures, weapons capabilities, host nation support, and the overall size of the compound.”
This classified cable was coupled with multiple requests for security. Clinton, whose State Department was responsible for the security of the consulate, was well aware of these requests as her declassified emails have shown. Nonetheless, the requests were repeatedly denied.
Senator Ron Johnson described the situation thus, in a statement Politifact rated as “true”:
The State Department not only failed to honor repeated requests for additional security, but instead actually reduced security in Libya. Although no one can say with certainty, I firmly believe a relatively small contingent of armed military guards would have prevented the attack, and those four lives would not have been lost.
Why did Clinton deny these repeated requests in what was a clear “dereliction of duty”?
(3) Where was Obama during the attack?
If the failures of leadership leading up to the attack were not enough, what of the failures during the attack? After continual silence from the administration about Obama’s whereabouts during the attack, an ex-White House spokesman finally admitted that he was not in the situation room during the 13-hour attack. This was despite Obama being in the White House and having a live drone feed available to him!
What was the Commander-In-Chief doing?
(4) Why were no reinforcements sent?
Though the White House and State Department were informed of the Benghazi attacks instantly, no reinforcements were sent, aside from the seven-man Tripoli team. Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, said there were gunships, air support, and Special Forces just two hours away in Sicily, Italy. Yet, these resources were never deployed. Instead, four Americans were left to die.
(5) Why did Clinton lie about the attackers’ motive?
Perhaps most disturbing was the administration’s concerted effort to conceal their failures in Benghazi. Five days after the attack, Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on five Sunday talk shows with crafted talking points, claiming that the Benghazi attacks were part of a spontaneous protest against a US-based filmmaker’s anti-Islamic film. This was despite now-documented proof that the administration knew almost immediately that this attack was not spurred by a video, but rather was the coordinated effort of a terrorist group.
In fact, on the night of the attack, Clinton wrote this to her daughter in a now-publicly available email: “[O]fficers were killed in Benghazi by an al Qaeda-like group.”
Nevertheless, three days later at Andrews Air Force Base, Clinton whispered the following to the father of Tyrone Woods: “We are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of your son.”
Woods reported this statement to the press shortly after it was uttered and long before Clinton’s duplicitous contradiction emerged. Clinton’s false account of the attack was reported not only by Woods’ father, but by Sean Smith’s mother and Glen Doherty’s sister as well. Moreover, Clinton publicly blamed the attack on a film despite emailing her daughter that the attack was terrorism.
Taken together, Clinton intentionally lied to the victims’ families and to the American public when she blamed the attack on a spontaneous protest rather than on terrorists.
But as Clinton herself remarked, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”
White House Petition
Clinton’s duplicity has been exposed and is on the record. Unfortunately, Obama’s role in Benghazi has been concealed through scapegoats like Clinton and Rice and by the administration’s stonewalling. It is time for Obama to testify before Congress regarding the events of September 11, 2012. This White House petition is the first step. Please sign here.
As citizens, we must honor the heroism of our four lost brothers by holding our commander-in-chief accountable.
The blood of the fallen cries out for answers.
Kayleigh McEnany is a conservative writer and commentator who appears regularly on Fox and CNN. She is currently in the third year of pursuing her J.D. at Harvard Law School. Kayleigh graduated from Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service and also studied politics at Oxford University. You can reach her by email at Kayleigh@PoliticalProspect.com or follow her on Twitter: @kayleighmcenany.
