Clinton Exonerated on Benghazi

Media outlets, particularly those with political axes to grind who breathlessly report stories when the first suppositions come in are often left looking rather foolish following a more complete examination of the relevant information.  Recent revelations about the deaths of Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three other Americans at the U.S. mission in Benghazi last September 11 at the hands of terrorists are a case in point.

Fox News has, to no one's surprise, been joining the Republican congressional chorus seeking political blood regarding the attack.  The prime target has been former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and the political reason for that is obvious.  Polls show her to be the prohibitive favorite to capture the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination if she runs, and the heavy favorite in the general election against any of the likely Republican nominees that November.

Fox News therefore reported that on August 15 our embassy in Tripoli, Libya, the capital, held a meeting on the dangerous security situation on the other side of the country at our mission in Benghazi.  They sent out a cable the next day saying a message would be drafted soon to make clear what would be needed.  It read, "In light of the uncertain security environment, the US Mission Benghazi will submit specific requests to US Embassy Tripoli for additional physical security upgrades and staffing needs."  So if that is all you know, along with the tragic deaths some four weeks later, then it is easy to jump to a conclusion.  

However, McClatchy News reporter Nancy Youssef has done a little more digging and come up with the rest of the story.  In an account published today, she reports that the fact is the very next day Gen. Carter Ham, in charge of U.S. Africa Command, without even waiting for the promised cable, personally telephoned Ambassador Stevens and asked him if he wanted a special security detail or other support.  Stevens said no.  Gen. Ham next spoke with Stevens at a conference in Germany, once again offering military assets if the ambassador wanted them.  Stevens once again said he did not. 

The attempts, therefore, to destroy the reputation of Hillary Clinton for failing to provide security that might have saved the ambassador and his three colleagues that night at the US mission in Benghazi are demonstrated to be little more than a conjectured smear campaign undertaken for the political pre-emption of a formidable potential campaign rival.  For whatever reason, the ambassador himself turned down additional security assets and decided to go to Benghazi with minimal protection.  He was the person in charge on the ground and made the call.  We can all agree that what followed was a terrible tragedy, costing the lives of four brave Americans.  We also now know that Hillary Rodham Clinton had nothing to do with it.