Yesterday President Obama went to the United Nations to address the General Assembly and in a remarkable term once again reiterated his belief that the September 11th attack in Benghazi was somehow influenced by a little watched YouTube video (video of UN address here). It is remarkable because multiple members of his administration, including the White House Spokesman and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, have walked back from that position and admitted the events were in fact a pre-meditated terrorist attack (see a rundown of the administrations reversal).
Meanwhile Libyan President Mohamed Magarief, who adamantly discredited the Obama administration’s original claims about the attack, told NBC News that the YouTube video had “nothing to do with” the attacks.
So why is the president countering his own administration and the Libyan government? Why is he clinging to the idea that this little watched YouTube video, which has been known for quite some time, lead to the attacks?
The Republican nominee for president Mitt Romney had the following to say, “I think they want to do their very best to keep the people of America from understanding exactly what happened. We expect candor, we expect transparency, particularly, as it relates to terrorism.”
What is the administration really hiding about the attacks, the motives and the people who conducted them? Are they simply soft on terrorism? Is it fear of admitting their foreign policy is in shambles? Is there something else?
Two top Senators on the Foreign Relations Committee are asking Hillary Clinton to show them diplomatic cables and other correspondence from slain ambassador Chris Stevens. CNN has reported that a recovered journal from the ambassador showed he was concerned about his safety. Meanwhile there are many questions about a complete lack of security to protect him.
The official story has collapsed and yet the president is still clinging to it. Serious questions need to be asked and answered.