After Benghazi revelations, heads will roll

 
Representative Darrell Issa Republicans such as Congressman Darrell Issa have held repeated hearings on the Benghazi attacks

There's new evidence, obtained by ABC, that the Obama administration did deliberately purge references to "terrorism" from accounts of the attack on the Benghazi diplomatic mission, which killed four people including the US ambassador to Libya.

Conservatives have long maintained that the administration deliberately suppressed the truth about the attacks.

This is the first hard evidence that the state department did ask for changes to the CIA's original assessment.

Specifically, they wanted references to previous warnings deleted and this sentence removed: "We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa'ida participated in the attack."

There's little doubt in my mind that this will haunt Hillary Clinton if she decides to run for president, unless she executes some pretty fancy footwork.

State department spokesperson Victoria Nuland is directly implicated, and the fingerprints of senior White House aides Ben Rhodes and Jay Carney are there as well.

Black and white
Hillary Clinton (12 September 2012) Republicans are certain to use the Benghazi affair against Clinton should she run in 2016

In the interests of full disclosure I have to say I have not in the past been persuaded that allegations of a cover-up were a big deal. It seemed to me a partisan attack based on very little.

I remember listening to reports from the BBC and others at the time that did suggest the attack in Benghazi was a spontaneous reaction to a rather puerile anti-Islamic video.

I understand President Barack Obama's careful use of the word "terrorism" when it actually means something, rather than as a knee-jerk description of any violence by foreigners against Americans, often in order to justify a "war on terror".

But the evidence is there in black and white, unless we doubt the documents obtained by ABC, which I don't.

Mr Obama's critics are often not very clear what is behind their allegations. I presume they think that the White House wanted to avoid claims the murders were the result of terrorism because this would undermine his claim that al-Qaeda was seriously "degraded". There's also a vague sense he's "soft on terror".

Butt-guarding

The new documents contain two rationales for the changes in language. The first is that it would prejudice the FBI investigation.

Perhaps, but I am not at all persuaded.

The other reason given, old-fashioned butt-guarding, is more credible.

As Ms Nuland puts it, such a report "could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either?"

However you read the motives, the state department and apparently the White House did get the CIA to change its story.

This is now very serious, and I suspect heads will roll. The White House will be on the defensive for a while.

 
Mark Mardell Article written by Mark Mardell Mark Mardell Presenter, The World This Weekend

East-West conflict set to run and run

The current dispute between Russia and the EU is not likely to be resolved any time soon, says Mark Mardell.

Read full article

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 456.

    #451
    Agree your point ref lawyers and insurance but would argue it's symptomatic of the "American way" - the fast buck moral free mentality that takes no account of stakeholder need - just the "bottom line".

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 455.

    JakOAT @449
    "American experiment"

    Framed three centuries ago
    Results mixed, possibly disastrous
    (that's not counting casualties so far)

    The here-repeated "offer", is of ENDURING equality of material means, necessary for equitable influence in framing of the laws that are our 'stage' as 'moral actors', necessary not just for our 'power in the market', but for material representation (ask the TP)

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 454.

    #451
    I didn't claim that everyone has no choice - I merely pointed out that your assumption that everyone has a choice is false. isn't that a tad straw mannish?

    Anyway, at least you acknowledge that minimum wage jobs need have to be subsidised by the tax payer - we have a similar situation in the UK - our govt uses it to claim that unemployment has gone down.

    Stupid isn't it?

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 453.

    450. All..
    We were not in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc, etc. by ourselves. Did no one else fight in these conflicts? Must America be the only one to say "Mea Culpa!"? If we should have "set the example" of democracy differently what (in your 20/20 hindsight) should it have been? Speak up!! (Crickets) More to the point, why didn't you do it? All we did was succeed. Tear us done, that will save you.

  • Comment number 452.

    All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

 

Comments 5 of 456

 

Features

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.