Editor’s note: Chuck Norris’ weekly political column debuts each Monday in WND and is then syndicated by Creators News Service for publication elsewhere. His column in WND often runs hundreds of words longer than the subsequent release to other media.
The Obama administration continues to suppress letters that could finally explain why U.S. officials lied to the world that the September 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi occurred as a protest over an American-made, anti-Muslim video. And yet, the families and friends of the four brave Americans murdered there continue to suffer without answers, reasons or justice. Is there not a shred of heart left in Washington?
USA Today explained last week how the watchdog group Judicial Watch blew the whistle on the White House’s withholding of documents via a letter obtained under the Freedom of Information Act for the purpose of litigation. In it, the U.S. Justice Department tries to justify its withholding of further Benghazi documents.
The 35 pages of documents were described by Justice trial attorney Robert Prince as “internal strategy discussions relating to the drafting of an official response letter” from Susan Rice to a variety of congressional questions about the Benghazi attack.
Just for the record, those documents include but are not exclusive to the following, according to USA Today:
- “A seven-page e-mail exchange consisting of 16 messages between State and other administration officials [Rhodes, Brennan, McDonough …] on Sept. 27 and Sept. 28, 2012, with an original subject line ‘Fox News: U.S. officials knew Libya attack was terrorism within 24 hours, sources confirm.’
- “Originally designated ‘sensitive but unclassified,’ the document was withheld to protect the formulation of a media strategy with respect to an ongoing sensitive matter under a FOIA exemption that protects the deliberative process, Prince wrote.
- “A one-page e-mail exchange, consisting of three messages, dated Sept. 11, 2012, with the subject line ‘UPDATE: Clashes at U.S. consulate in eastern Libyan city (Reuters).’
- “A three-page e-mail exchange between State and other U.S. officials, dated Sept. 28, 2012 and originally designated ‘unclassified.’ The subject line of the first five messages is ‘Statement by the Director of Public Affairs for National Intelligence Shawn Turner on the intelligence related to the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.'”
This withholding of documents comes on the backside of another discovery by Judicial Watch: several e-mails that exposed Obama aide Ben Rhodes tutoring then-U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice on how to play the blame game with the anti-Muslim video on television appearances only five days after the attack.
Moreover, Fox News revealed this past week that “Documents reviewed by Fox News show there are differences between Benghazi emails released through the federal courts to the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch and emails released to the House oversight committee as part of its investigation into the attacks. … The discrepancies are fueling allegations the administration is holding back documents to Congress.”
As far as why the White House continues its suppression of documents, Alec Gerlach, a State Department spokesman, explained, “Additional documents are being processed for response to congressional inquiries.” The key term there is “processed.” Never mind the “process” has been going on for three years.
Even more evasive is spokeswoman Marie Harf, who explained that documents will be forthcoming “on a rolling basis.” That is code for they are being “rolled out” as they fit the Obama administration’s political and selfish agenda.
Isn’t it amazing? The White House can pump out 10,000 talking points and pages of documents trying to justify every angle of Obamacare, but it still can’t answer four fundamental questions about the lives lost in Benghazi, as posited by Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., who will spearhead a new congressional committee looking into the terrorist attack: 1) Why was security at the consulate so lax? 2) Why were repeated calls for more security disregarded? 3) Why was the U.S. military not more positioned and ready to pounce in that powder-keg part of the world? 4) Why did the Obama administration contrive a duck-n-dodge response in word and deed to this vicious terrorist act immediately after it happened?
As ABC News reported, Retired Air Force Brig. Gen. Robert Lovell testified before the House Oversight Committee’s fourth hearing on the attack that he and other U.S. military officials never believed that it was related to the anti-Muslim video. Stationed in Germany at the time, he told Congress that he and other commanders strategized about “what we should do” while they waited for commands to come from the U.S. State Department, but those orders never came.
“There are accounts of time, space and capability, discussions of the question, ‘could we have gotten there in time to make a difference?'” Lovell testified. “The discussion is not could or could not of time, space and capability. The point is we should have tried.”
Benghazi-gate remains one of the greatest and most tragic commentaries on the flagrant disregard for American human life for the sake of White House’s political expediency. More than two years later, it’s about time that the House of Representatives opened up an investigation on what really happened in Benghazi and what roles the Obama administration had in its cover-up and blunders to save the lives of those four courageous Americans.
The truth is, as Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and others have explained, the White House manufactured the bogus anti-Islam video protest reason “to protect the president’s 2012 campaign message that al-Qaida was in retreat.”
Obama may repeatedly tout a decimation of al-Qaida’s leadership, but Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos, with whom I traveled to Iraq in 2007 to visit our troops, told the Business Insider, “We may think we are done with them. But they are not necessarily done with us. … You can’t ignore [that part of] the world. … You can’t turn your back on it.”
And what about Hillary Clinton’s run for the presidency in 2016? Could the Benghazi documents, which would shed light on the real truths behind Benghazi, still being withheld to help Hillary’s presidential campaign and prospective appointment to the Oval Office?
One thing is certain: Someone in the White House is continuing to heed the slimy advice of former White House Chief of Staff and now Al-Capone-Mayor of Chicago Rahm Emmanuel, who said: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”