Paul Greenberg (Commentary, Nov. 28) hit the mark about the Benghazi fiasco when he wrote that Barack Obama will be judged by history on his letting U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton repeat a dubious account of the ransacking of the consulate and murder of the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, on Sept. 11. Someday the nation's watchdogs-turned-lapdogs in the media will also be judged by history and found derelict in their duty to the American people for not reporting the obvious.
In the days and weeks following the Benghazi assault, either Obama had plausible evidence that this was a planned terrorist attack or he didn't. Assuming the president had no evidence that this was a terrorist attack would lend some justification for his allowing the U.N. ambassador and secretary of state to link a violent demonstration in Benghazi to the offensive made-in-America video, and then his own repeating of this explanation to the United Nations on Sept. 25.
But facts can be stubborn, and that scenario has at least one major factual contradiction: Obama told millions of Americans in the second presidential debate on Oct. 16 (even asking debate moderator Candy Crowley for corroboration) that he soon learned Ambassador Stevens' murder was part of a terrorist attack in Benghazi and had so stated in an address on Sept. 12 outside the White House with Secretary Clinton at his side. Oops.
Larry C. Floyd, Yukon
Officially Licensed Sports Gear! Shop 1000's of NFL Team Products.