Libya

Obama Admin's Libya Story Continues to Unravel

|

Over at The Daily Beast, Eli Lake reports on why the Obama administration's initial assertion that the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya was a spontaneous act and not a planned-out terrorist operation. The American ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were killed.

Noting that the administration now calls the attack a terrorist job, Lake cites an unnamed former CIA official who says of the early assertion: 

"I think this is a case of an administration saying what they wished to be true before waiting for all the facts to come in."

Lake notes that U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice was mischaracterizing the security detail on last Sunday's talk shows:

One other aspect of the administration's story appears shaky as well. Speaking to ABC News on Sunday, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice responded to allegations that there wasn't enough security at the embassy by saying, "Tragically, two of the four Americans who were killed were there providing security. That was their function. And indeed, there were many other colleagues who were doing the same with them."

Rice was referring to two ex-Navy SEALs, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, who died during the violence.

But two former special operators and a former intelligence officer, two of whom had worked with Doherty, told The Daily Beast that Doherty and Woods's job was not to protect Ambassador Chris Stevens. That job falls to Regional Security Officers or RSOs. During the fighting, some RSOs who were supposed to protect the ambassador apparently became separated from him.

"Glen died for Tyrone and Tyrone died for Glen," one of the former special operators told The Daily Beast. "They fought bravely, but they did not die protecting the ambassador."

More here.

Reason on Libya here.

There are few areas in which the Republican and Democratic parties are more alike than in foreign policy and military intervention. Indeed, despite suspiciously timed partisan swings depending on who holds the White House, both parties tend to be in favor of playing the role of globocop. Hopefully the presidential debate dedicated to foreign policy will raise questions about why we're in Libya in the first place.

Advertisement

NEXT: Spain Reluctant to Accept Assistance

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I understand why they’re doing it. The first time we’re attacked by terrorists, shocked Americans rally behind D.C. leadership. Attacks after that, Americans start asking questions.

    What I don’t understand is why they thought they would get away with it. They negated so much of the political positive from the bin Laden kill with their undisciplined lies. At least learn from your past mistakes, morons.

    1. proglodytes consider short-run pragmatism to be a good thing, especially when they don’t take ownership of resources they can control. It thrills them.

      As with economic policy, they take to foreign policy that “bold, persistent experimentation” that makes them feel creative and smart.

      If experiments don’t work, others pay the consequences. And most importantly the smart, well-educated, connected and privileged are using other people’s money and lives. So the incentives are there to see if they can get away with things. If they win, they strut. If something goes wrong, they don’t suffer but blame something else. As high-IQ and clever as they are, their world view and incentives combine to lead to short-term thinking.

      And until the real pain really hits enough of these smug elite, and they fear immediate harm, there is no learning from their past mistakes.

      1. Not often enough are there comments here such as this one ? sparkling, incisive and all too true. Among the profanity, the buffoonery and tit-for-tat nonsense in the Comments sections, there is still thinking. As I read yours, I could almost see the establishment media, pop culture faces in their cozy studios and after-hours, upscale dining; although I can hardly bear watching them anymore, as they puppet their shallow arrogance and sophomoric analysis.
        Cheers for this. Very nicely said.

        1. Well, thank you. But in the future I almost certainly will make use of the privilege this site offers to do the profanity, the buffoonery bit.

        2. . Among the profanity, the buffoonery and tit-for-tat nonsense in the Comments sections, there is still thinking.

          Needs moar tittys + beer

  2. There are few areas in which the Republican and Democratic parties are more alike than in foreign policy and military intervention.

    And stomping on civil liberties, and economic protectionism, and entitlement programs, and domestic security… shall I go on?

  3. Over at The Daily Beast, Eli Lake reports on why the Obama administration’s initial assertion that the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya was a spontaneous act and not a planned-out terrorist operation.

    That’s not actually a sentence, and it’s not close enough to a complete sentence that I know what you’re saying. It’s very similar to this:

    Over at The Daily Beast, Eli Lake reports on why the Obama administration’s initial assertion.

    /syntax-fascism

  4. “I think this is a case of an administration saying what they wished to be true before waiting for all the facts to come in.”

    So they jumped the gun?

    1. It seems to me like they were shooting before they aimed.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.