My initial reaction to the New York Times’ revisionist account of Benghazi was that if there’s anything to the story, Congress should hold hearings to test, in light of the new information, the competing versions of who and what were behind the attacks. This remark was intended to point out that Benghazi revisionism might be a dangerous game for Hillary Clinton and her supporters to play. I made the same point more explicitly at the end of my piece when I wrote: “Whatever else the Times story demonstrates, I believe it shows that this story won’t go away as long as Hillary Clinton aspires to be president.”
Bing West drives the point home by focusing on the terrorist at the heart of the Times’ story:
The rambling [New York Times] article was intended to defend the administration. Instead, it has succeeded in reopening the Benghazi affair. Why is the administration allowing the murderer of an American ambassador to walk free, 16 months after the attack?
The Times has identified Islamic militia leader Abu Khattala as the ringleader in the attack. Yet, as West notes:
Not one sentence in the article explained why the administration allows Khattala to strut freely around Benghazi today. President Obama authorizes drone strikes to kill dozens of Islamists each year. Why is Khattala off-limits? That is the real story.
It certainly is one of them.
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.