To the editor:
With the new testimony of three State Department officials before a House committee on May 8, it is becoming clear why there was no military rescue response to our diplomatic mission in Benghazi. There was no military response because a political decision was made early on not to respond.
The fact that this was a terrorist attack was politically inconvenient to the Obama 2012 election campaign, especially in that a substantial portion of that campaign was the boasting that al-Qaida was on the run and no longer a serious threat to America. But an al-Qaida-affiliated attack on our diplomatic mission in Libya would not only put the lie to that, but would require an aggressive military rescue response that would validate the event as an al-Qaida attack just eight weeks out from the presidential election.
On the other hand, if it was a spontaneous, out-of-control demonstration that emerged from outrage over an American-made anti-Muslim video, the fact that it was a pre-planned al-Qaida attack could be concealed. Also, a military response would not be an appropriate intervention into the sovereign affairs of Libya.
And so this is why the order to “stand down” was given. In order to meet the political needs of the Obama re-election campaign, this event could not be seen as a terrorist attack. So it was hurriedly morphed into a violent demonstration incited by an American-made video. This did not come from the military or intelligence communities, as the testimony of the State Department officials makes clear. This was the White House and Hillary Clinton working in collusion to create a false narrative.
So, in order to maintain Democrat control of the White House in 2012 and 2016, our ambassador to Libya and other fellow Americans were left to twist in the wind and then be slaughtered. And the American people were deliberately lied to about it.