Home » Opinion » Editorials
'A terrorist attack': Now they tell us
On Thursday, White House spokesman Jay Carney finally uttered the word the White House had been careful to avoid when mentioning the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including the ambassador. The word was “terrorist.”
“It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack,” he said. So why did he insist for more than a week that the uprisings against U.S. properties and personnel were merely the conduct of “extremists” protesting a bad movie? As The Washington Examiner pointed out, both Carney and President Obama referred to the Benghazi attackers as simply “extremists” before Thursday. Why Thursday?
On Wednesday Matthew Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, testified before Congress that the U.S. ambassador to Libya was killed “in the course of a terrorist attack.” After that, the White House acknowledged the truth, as though no one had ever suggested otherwise.
So now it is official: The United States has sustained a terrorist attack on American soil on Obama’s watch. That raises two “self-evident” questions.
1. Was the administration adequately protecting U.S. personnel on the anniversary of 9/11? The answer is a definite “no.” As a Wall Street Journal story detailing numerous security lapses in Benghazi and across the Middle East put it last week: “The State Department chose to maintain only limited security in Benghazi, Libya, despite months of sporadic attacks there on U.S. and other Western missions.”
2. How is Obama’s strategy of engagement with the Muslim world working out? Recall that Obama during his campaign for President said he would change the way Muslims perceived the United States by making sure they knew he was listening to them and understood them.
Our naive President really understands little about the people whose desire to kill Americans cannot be assuaged by pretty speeches.
READER COMMENTS: 4
- Voter restrictions: Who will govern us? - 26
- School board papers: Beaudry gets left behind - 1
- Data overreach Are programs really justified? The weak case for PRISM. - 11
- A Medicaid reduction? That is not likely - 8
- Border security? Maybe, some day, perhaps. Or not - 35
- Priority profs: University system tops HHS - 5
- Recognizing father: Not PC, but still OK - 1
- Closing Hanover St.: Not a 'free market' move - 6
- Step into the past: Discover old NH this weekend - 0
READER COMMENTS: 3
- House, Senate at standoff over vaccines, voter registration bill - 0
- Rochester parents called to court to answer for truant children - 0
- Exeter High teachers' resignations announced at meeting - 0
- Rochester woman under arrest in underage party - 0
- LeBron, Heat edge Spurs in OT, force Game 7 - 0
- Santos drives in three as Curve beat Fisher Cats in 10 - 0
- Large billboards grabbing attention on Route 101 in Epping - 2
- Pearl Street lot proposal involves student housing in Manchester - 3
- Manchester VFW posts fights to survive without poker cash - 2
Voter restrictions: Who will govern us?
Mother of drowned baby gets prison time