Did Obama cover-up the Benghazi attack?
Rex Murphy, writing for the National Post, hits nails on heads, saying: "So where did we get the narrative that this was an outgrowth of a protest over a video? And why did the Obama camp hang on so long to a wrong account of what actually happened? Why did they deliberately seek to inflate and exaggerate the importance of the video?
One reason is obvious. An administration bragging that bin Laden is dead, and that his surviving al-Qaeda lieutenants are quivering in fear, doesn’t want a successful attack on one of its diplomatic compounds to be attributed to the very terrorist group it claims to have tamed — not two months before an election, certainly.
The furious spin of the first few days, and in particular the absolutely empty claims put forward so vigorously, and without qualification, by Ambassador Rice, might constitute more than an error. They may prove to be deliberate efforts to smother what really happened in a cloud of misinformation.
There is an air of subterfuge on this story. And as is well known since the days of Richard Nixon: It’s not the crime — it’s the cover-up."
Read Murphy's full comment at the link below.
Thanks to Vulture W.E. for the link.
