On eve of Benghazi anniversary, Libya stiffs US on arrests

posted at 10:41 am on September 10, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

With all of the attention focused on Barack Obama’s plans to use military strikes to hasten regime change in a country with al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorist networks operating on a large scale, let’s not forget the last time this strategy was put in place.  A year ago tomorrow, terrorists sacked our consulate in Benghazi and killed four Americans, including our Ambassador to Libya.  Despite claims that the Obama administration would seek out the culprits, the New York Times reports that the successor government in Libya has refused to cooperate with the US on making arrests:

A year after the attacks in Benghazi that killed the United States ambassador to Libya and three other Americans, the Justice Department has indicted suspects. Intelligence officials have a general idea of where they are hiding. And the military has a contingency plan to snatch them if that becomes necessary.

But the fledgling Libyan government, which has little to no control over significant parts of the country, like Benghazi and eastern Libya, has rebuffed the Obama administration’s efforts to arrest the suspects.

President Obama promised the day after the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks to bring the killers to justice, and the fact that this has not happened has led Congressional Republicans to renew their criticism of the administration for its handling of the Benghazi episode as officials have made the case that Congress should authorize a military strike against Syria.

“You cannot have an attack on the mission, 12 months later identified a good number of the participants, and have absolutely no consequences for the taking of American lives,” Representative Mike Rogers of Michigan, who leads the House Intelligence Committee, said in an interview.

To be fair, the Libyan government doesn’t have control over almost all of the country.  This spring, they couldn’t even clear the street in front of their own Defense Ministry in their capital, Tripoli, of the militias and terrorist networks that blockaded them to force a change in policy and government.  The Libyan government has no power to do what the US wants, and the US apparently has no will to deal with the situation ourselves.

The White House owes the American people an explanation for this failure, but then again, they still owe us a full accounting of the failures from a year ago in Benghazi, too.  The Guardian in the UK finds that the official story from the administration doesn’t fit the facts on the ground, and wonders why Americans aren’t demanding more accountability:

The attack on the US consulate in Benghazi was striking for a number of reasons: the date, 11 September, the toll – four diplomats killed, including an ambassador – and the knock-on effects on the careers of senior American politicians.

But what is perhaps most striking is the inconsistencies: the US version of events compared with those of witnesses and the facts on the ground. The two do not tally. And so, a year later, there remain pressing questions about what happened that night – and what the Americans say happened. …

One year after the killings, no suspects have appeared in court, either in Libya or in the US. Until that happens, and until the gap between claims made in the US and reality on the ground is explained, the American public will remain in the dark about the events of 11 September 2012 in Benghazi.

But hey, let’s do to Syria what we did to Libya, because it worked so awfully well the first time!


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I find it troubling that youtube is playing as big a role in Syria as it did in Libya.

abobo on September 10, 2013 at 10:48 AM

Unexpectedly!

workingclass artist on September 10, 2013 at 10:48 AM

You know what a really good way to honor 9-11 tomorrow would be. This.

Bmore on September 10, 2013 at 10:48 AM

Isn’t Jeb Bush presenting Shrillary the Butcher some “liberty” award today?

Flange on September 10, 2013 at 10:49 AM

I find it troubling that youtube is playing as big a role in Syria as it did in Libya.

abobo on September 10, 2013 at 10:48 AM

Because Deception and digital manipulation is the new Hotness in the Youtube Social Media Governance.

workingclass artist on September 10, 2013 at 10:49 AM

Hey! We’ve got a bunch of cruise missiles we’re evidently not going to be using in Syria. We could threaten the Libyans with them, and…

Oh. Wait…

trigon on September 10, 2013 at 10:53 AM

To be fair, the Libyan government doesn’t have control over almost all of the country. This spring, they couldn’t even clear the street in front of their own Defense Ministry in their capital,

To be fair? I guess I didn’t realize that fairness was part of the equation. If the Libyans need help, I’m sure the US could provide assistance.

But, of course, Benghazi is in full cover-up mode and the lazy and stupid bastard who stood in the Rose Garden on 9/12/12 and spun a tale of YouTube videos, spontaneous protests, mythic Libyan rescuers who rushed Christopher Stevens through the streets to a hospital, and calls for swift just…… Well, actually having people under arrrest would be awkward after the lies that have been told for the past year.

Happy Nomad on September 10, 2013 at 10:53 AM

I think the Middle East and it’s dictators have gotten a good measure of our President and is acting accordingly.

WisRich on September 10, 2013 at 10:57 AM

New video evidence in 3…2…1…

workingclass artist on September 10, 2013 at 10:57 AM

There were never going to be any “arrests” in Libya.

There should be, however, several arrests made here.

And that schmuck video maker out in L.A. should never have been arrested.

coldwarrior on September 10, 2013 at 10:58 AM

The Guardian in the UK finds that the official story from the administration doesn’t fit the facts on the ground, and wonders why Americans aren’t demanding more accountability:

For the same reason that no one will report the attack by another of Barky’s sons in Union Square in broad daylight or the fact that the victim of that savage attack just died. It’s the Ed Asner strategy of cowardice.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on September 10, 2013 at 10:58 AM

One year after the killings, no suspects have appeared in court, either in Libya or in the US. Until that happens, and until the gap between claims made in the US and reality on the ground is explained, the American public will remain in the dark about the events of 11 September 2012 in Benghazi.

this is criminal.

we want the truth
no more smoke and mirrors
no more shuck and jive

ted c on September 10, 2013 at 11:00 AM

Benghazi, Schmenghazi. We have Syria to worry and talk about ad nauseum.

tru2tx on September 10, 2013 at 11:02 AM

But, of course, Benghazi is in full cover-up mode and the lazy and stupid bastard who stood in the Rose Garden on 9/12/12 and spun a tale of YouTube videos, spontaneous protests, mythic Libyan rescuers who rushed Christopher Stevens through the streets to a hospital, and calls for swift just…… Well, actually having people under arrrest would be awkward after the lies that have been told for the past year.

Happy Nomad on September 10, 2013 at 10:53 AM

“I never said anything about any red line youtube video. The world said that it was the red line youtube video that did it. Congress said it. Congress even had Nakouli arrested for his red line video. The future cannot belong to those who defame the prophet. I didn’t just say that. But it’s a true statement, whoever did just say it …” — King Admiral Emperor Barky

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on September 10, 2013 at 11:02 AM

Why would anybody, anywhere in the world, cooperate with the Red Lyin now, when he has demonstrated that he prefers to back down — on the slimmest of pretexts?

RushBaby on September 10, 2013 at 11:02 AM

And, to top everything off, Jeb Bush is presenting Hillary Clinton with a Liberty Award

Rewarding incompetency?

Rovin on September 10, 2013 at 11:07 AM

I suspect it went more like this:

DoJ: You guys don’t really want us to go over there and arrest those ‘suspects’ do you?

Libyan Government: Umm, no?

DoJ: Okay bye.

Arrested suspects can end up talking about what happened, and God forbid a more credible version of the story should get out.

Just another example of pretty much anyone else’s version of events being more believable than the garbage we get from the REB’s administration.

slickwillie2001 on September 10, 2013 at 11:08 AM

There should be, however, several arrests made here.

[coldwarrior on September 10, 2013 at 10:58 AM]

There should have been an Operation Deter and Degrade last October and I don’t see why it isn’t still on the table.

Oh wait, you mean here as in here, not there? Yeah, that, too.

Dusty on September 10, 2013 at 11:09 AM

I thought they already got the guy. At the very least, I hope they froze his youtube account!

redzap on September 10, 2013 at 11:10 AM

the Justice Department has indicted suspects.

Why bother. Any decent criminal defense attorney is going to object to the introduction of any evidence: it was an unsecured crime scene, that’s been picked over for a year at this point.

Instead of lobbing cruise missiles at Assad, lob them at whom we suspect in Benghazi.

That is, if you actually believe in America’s international reputation. Backing down over a red line on the use of chemical weapons is one thing, not responding when your ambassador is killed is far, far worse.

rbj on September 10, 2013 at 11:10 AM

To be fair, the Libyan government doesn’t have control over almost all of the country. This spring, they couldn’t even clear the street in front of their own Defense Ministry in their capital,

To be fair? I guess I didn’t realize that fairness was part of the equation. If the Libyans need help, I’m sure the US could provide assistance.

Yeah, that ‘lack of control’ thing is a feature, not a bug, in the system.

Deafdog on September 10, 2013 at 11:17 AM

And why not? I mean, just ask mnfg (whatever the f*ck his stupid name is) – everybody’s just *so* afraid we’ll *do* something about it… or something.

Midas on September 10, 2013 at 11:18 AM

This is another joke, right? We’ve been in a collective dream state for the past 5 years. Huh? No? No! Oh dear God.

smfic on September 10, 2013 at 11:22 AM

This country is so f*cked up; thanks liberals/leftists/media – thanks a f*cking lot.

At this point, I do believe I’m looking forward to the inevitable conflict. We have to have it at this point, or simply whimper as we go along down the clear path of tyranny ahead.

Unfortunately, whimpering is all we hear from the GOP, from ‘conservative’ talking heads, blogs and websites (ahem). Well, whimpering and ‘buy my book, it has all the answers!’.

Disgusted.

Midas on September 10, 2013 at 11:24 AM

FAILURE is King Barry’s middle name.

GarandFan on September 10, 2013 at 11:50 AM

When an American liberal loses the Guardian, as Shakespeare might have said: They, in deep poo, be…

The most likely Benghazi scenario is that Obama/Clinton were transferring surplus Libyan arms to Syrian ‘rebels’ and blow-back happened for whatever reason.

When the blow-back began, Obama/Clinton frantically began a coverup process and by sheer coincidence (or quick action to seed it in Cairo…) “the video” gave them the basis for a (lame) cover story to hide behind.

Knowing their Butt-Kissing press had their backs, they allowed the diplomatic facility to be destroyed along with four of our fellow Americans, while proceeding to roll out the cover story.

I may be wrong, but I’m confident the administration’s story is a blatant lie. Something very bad was going on in Benghazi that was explicitly or tacitly approved and/or ordered by the highest levels of the State Dept. and President Obama.

DrDeano on September 10, 2013 at 11:51 AM

And Jeb Bush celebrates like this.

Schadenfreude on September 10, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Plus, this is now Amerikastan.

Schadenfreude on September 10, 2013 at 11:57 AM

DrDeano on September 10, 2013 at 11:51 AM

I am fairly confident that this is going to blow up in their faces. Maybe not as quickly as I would like, but it will.

ORconservative on September 10, 2013 at 11:59 AM

I am fairly confident that this is going to blow up in their faces. Maybe not as quickly as I would like, but it will.

ORconservative on September 10, 2013 at 11:59 AM

Wish I had your confidence…

sandee on September 10, 2013 at 12:03 PM

I wonder if Hillary ever even thinks about who should held accountable for the terrorist attack in Benghazi. She adamant that it shouldn’t be her, but she doesn’t seem to be too interested in whether or not the attackers are held accountable, either. A woman without a soul.

scalleywag on September 10, 2013 at 1:06 PM

Jeb Bush presenting this award to Hillary is more than disgusting. I guess he is reaching across the aisle.

mobydutch on September 10, 2013 at 1:14 PM

But what is perhaps most striking is the inconsistencies: the US version of events compared with those of witnesses and the facts on the ground. The two do not tally.

Come on man, haven’t you figured it out yet? Those people on the ground were under attack, they were dazed and confused, who could possibly believe their story. Obama and Hillary, “now let me tell you what really happened.”

DDay on September 10, 2013 at 1:33 PM

Second look at bombing Libya?

It seems we were promised a bombing. And we’re not going to give up until we get it.

Marcus Traianus on September 10, 2013 at 1:42 PM

I thought they already got the guy. At the very least, I hope they froze his youtube account!

redzap on September 10, 2013 at 11:10 AM

HA thats sarc gold :)

dmacleo on September 10, 2013 at 2:09 PM

Conspiracy nut that I am: what if one of the reasons for the rush to war with Syria is to take out a cache of weapons we funneled to the rebels from Libya? It wouldn’t look good for the rebels to use them while the world is paying attention due to sarin being used by one side or the other.

Occam’s razor tells me it’s the rebels using the gas on their victims and/or their own collateral losses from a regime strike and passing it off as wholly the work of the regime. Where have we seen this script before? More times than I care to remember starting with Hamas and multiple times in Afghanistan and Iraq.

AH_C on September 10, 2013 at 3:21 PM