Anatomy of a Coverup
Describing the Obama White House's refusal to answer questions about the what happened in Libya, Stephen Hayes calls it the "Omerta Administration." For the uninitiated, omerta is "A rule or code that prohibits speaking or divulging information about certain activities, especially the activities of a criminal organization.'" And it captures precisely the administration's attempt to obscure its handling of the attack and its aftermath.
The Obama administration built its entire explanation of Benghazi around this detail it learned from a call between two al Qaeda-linked operatives. But as the administration made its public case that the 9/11/12 attacks resulted from a mob spun out of control, top Obama officials emphasized (and manipulated) that detail while excluding the far more relevant fact that the conversation took place between . . . two al Qaeda-linked operatives. Beyond that, there was no protest in Benghazi, as virtually everyone now acknowledges.
So where the administration didn’t hide information, it cherry-picked what it would share. And where the administration shared information, it manipulated that intelligence. Now, as Americans seek information about what happened in Benghazi, the administration stonewalls.
The State Department’s Accountability Review Board is due to report on November 15—9 days after the election. “We don’t play politics when it comes to American national security,” Obama says. What will the State Department have learned in 65 days that it won’t know after 56 days?
And what about the president’s claim, “Everything we get, every piece of information we get—as we got it we laid it out for the American people”?
It’s simply not true. And trust matters.