More information comes out about 2012 Benghazi attacks

General Manager/Editor Ron Schott

General Manager/Editor Ron Schott

Last May, I wrote an editorial expressing my concerns with the spin our government put on the terrorist attack on an American consulate in Benghazi that took place on September 11, 2012.
You remember…it happened during the 2012 President election cycle. President Barack Obama, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and others said up to two weeks after the attack that killed U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, that it was a protest to a video that caused all of the commotion.
The claim at the time was a video poorly depicting the prophet Muhammad led to the attack.
At the time, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney was criticized for his attack on the reason given for what happened in Benghazi.
This led to Congressional hearings, where those on the committee were accused of attacking the administration for political reasons.
Well, recent declassified documents publicized last week show that indeed the administration was told the event was a terrorist attack by General Carter Ham, who at the time was the head of AFRICOM.
Ham tesitified that he had broke the news to then Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and General Martin Dempsey, who was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The meeting happened just minutes before the two went to meet with President Obama.
Ham testified he learned of the assault within 15 minutes of it taking place through a call received from the AFRICOM Command Center.
He gave 450 pages of testimony in then classified, closed-door hearings.
“Again, sir, I think, you know, there was some preliminary discussion about, you know, maybe there was a demonstration,” Ham said in his testimony. “But I think at the command, I personally and I think the command very quickly got to the point that this was not a demonstration, this was a terrorist attack.”
Panetta also testified last February that he believed it was a terrorist attack.
So my question is who decided to change the narrative from it being a terrorist attack to a demonstration from a controversial video?
And why, if Panetta knew it was a terrorist attack, did he let the narrative continue that a video led to a violent demonstration?
My opinion is administration officials took this incident and hushed it long enough just to get through the presidential election.
That mission was accomplished. So to, in my opinion, was the mission accomplished for purposely lying to the American people about this attack.
More officials cared about the politics instead of the lives of those lost or in danger that day.
I hope that some day officials are held accountable for their treatment of this situation.
While I understand that Hillary Clinton will likely be a presidential candidate in 2016, I personally think she should be one of the many needing to be held accountable for her treatment of the Benghazi case. She should not get a pass though with the current state of the mainstream media, she’ll likely get it anyway.

Posted on Wednesday, January 15, 2014 at 2:01 pm