Benghazi Baloney

The mystery surrounding the 9/11 terror attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi continues to deepen.  One of the more recent revelations in the ever unfolding story about the attack involves the suspicious departure of General Carter Ham, commander of AFRICOM.  Allegations have been made that as the general was mobilizing a rapid response force to come to the aid of the besieged consulate, he was told to stand down.  (That siege, as we all know, resulted in the death of America’s Libyan ambassador and three others, including two Navy Seals.)  According to reports, General Ham told those telling him to stand down to take a hike.  His job was to protect American lives and he had no intention of standing by while a terrorist attack was underway in his area of command.  For this “insubordination,” he was purportedly relieved of his command.

These revelations, if true, are disturbing to say the least and raise yet more questions about exactly what the Obama administration knew about the threat to our consulate in Benghazi, when they knew it, and why they failed to act in time to prevent this tragedy from occurring.  The idea that American personnel serving abroad would be abandoned in a moment of mortal need for political reasons is nothing short of reprehensible.

To be sure, a military intervention in Benghazi would have undercut the narrative put forth by the Administration that Al-Qaeda was as dead as Osama Bin Laden and that thanks to the courage and decisiveness of Barack Hussein Obama, Americans have little or nothing to fear from this now defunct terrorist organization.  This narrative has been central to Mr. Obama’s reelection campaign.  Doubtless that’s why the Administration pedaled the myth that the attack was a spontaneous reaction to a video mocking the prophet Mohammed, a myth that has now been clearly been debunked.

But protecting the President’s political career isn’t the job of our men and women in uniform.  They have pledged their lives to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.  They live by a creed that says no soldier will ever leave a fallen comrade behind.  They expect that their commanders above them – the Commander in Chief most of all – will have their backs when it counts, but in this instance a general may have been asked to act in a way that directly contradicted the creed by which he and his soldiers have pledged to live and die.  And now the question that begs for an answer is:  Was General Ham asked to betray the Soldier’s creed in the service of one man’s political ambitions?

For now, these allegations are just that – unsubstantiated allegations.  All that’s known for sure is that General Ham is scheduled to relinquish command of AFRICOM and plans to retire.  The real story is not likely to be fully known until the election is over – and that’s the goal of the O-Team’s filibuster.  Nevertheless, the truth needs to be made known.  The American people are entitled to know if they can trust their government to keep them safe, and whether their security, and that of their fellow citizens, is negotiable for political gain.

True to form, President Obama is feigning umbrage that anyone would dare question the integrity of his administration’s response to the Benghazi attack.  That line of response is just not acceptable for the president who pledged to preside over the most transparent administration in history.  Until the President and his Secretary of State give the American people a clear and comprehensive account of what really happened in Benghazi and why, the American people’s trust in them will continue to be undermined.  It’s hard to trust someone who doesn’t respect you enough to tell you the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.  Sadly, when it comes to Benghazi, all we’ve gotten from the President and his minions thus far is a bunch of baloney.

Ken Connor

By

Ken Connor is the Chairman of the Center for a Just Society. An esteemed attorney, Connor is affiliated with the law firm of Marks, Balette, & Giessel, a firm nationally known for its successful representation of victims of nursing home abuse and neglect.

Subscribe to CE
(It's free)

Go to Catholic Exchange homepage

  • JMC

    I am seeing a disturbing pattern here. A similar allegation was made years ago; a year before the 9/11 attacks, the story goes, a team was supposedly sent to Afghanistan to capture or kill bin Laden, aided by locals who knew where he was and wanted him out, hoping this would curb the Taliban’s rising power. At the very last minute, this team was told to stand down. I don’t know if it’s true or not, but the issue of General Ham is far too similar for my comfort.
    Besides, are we really surprised by this reaction, coming from a president who bowed to the king of Saudi Arabia? A president who, very likely, never should have been permitted to run in the first place? (I don’t trust the supposed birth certificate that was eventually published on line; it took far too long for it to materialize. And, more recently, when a politician in Arizona tried to obtain a copy from the Hawaii Bureau of Records, he was told it was NOT AVAILABLE, but the official affirmed that it did exist. Sorry, I may be doing the people involved a grave injustice, but my suspicions are at full tilt, and they involve forgery and bribery and/or extortion.

  • constitutionalist

    yeah the bengahzi thing was actually a complete neglegence on the part of the administration because the people at the consulate were asking for and airstirke on a mortar that was being lazed and they asked for the airstrike and didn’t get it. the mortar didnt hit the consulate until two hours later-plenty of time for any of the aircraft in italy or some other US overseas base. i still would like to know what exactly was going through obama’s head that day when he said it was a youtube video not a terrorist attack?

MENU