Senators Again Urge Obama To Answer Key Questions About Benghazi Attack

Senators Again Urge Obama to Answer Key Questions about Benghazi Attack

11:51 AM, Oct 31, 2012 • By ROBERT ZARATE



Four senators sent a letter to the White House today, urging President Obama and his advisers to answer the growing list of questions about the 9/11 attack in Benghazi, Libya, which lawmakers have posed in writing to his administration over the last month. Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), and Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.), the authors of the letter, explain to the president:

The American people deserve to know all the facts surrounding the terrorist attack in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, that resulted in the murder of four Americans—including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Unfortunately, you and your senior administration officials have not been forthcoming in providing answers to the many questions that have emerged.

On October 9, 2012, we sent a letter to the senior intelligence officials in your administration in an effort to obtain answers to these questions. More than three weeks have passed, and we still have not received a response. To make matters worse, since that original letter, we sent several subsequent letters to you or to your senior administration officials asking a number of questions, and we have failed to receive a single letter in response.
The American people and their representatives in Congress need to understand what you knew about the Benghazi terrorist attack and when you knew it. We also have a right to know what steps you and your administration took—or failed to take—before, during, and after the terrorist attack to protect American lives….

Related Stories

• More Misdirection from the White House
• Ten Questions for the White House
• An Unlikely Benghazi Tale Unravels
• Obama's September 11 Phone Call
• White House Tries to Throw Military Under Bus

Your failure to answer these important questions will only add to the growing perception among many of our constituents that your administration has undertaken a concerted effort to misrepresent the facts and stonewall Congress and the American people. We look forward to a prompt and thorough response to these questions. The American people deserve a full accounting of what happened in Benghazi where four brave Americans were murdered.

Here's entire text of the letter:

McCAIN-GRAHAM-AYOTTE-JOHNSON LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA:
October 31, 2012
President Barack Obama

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

The American people deserve to know all the facts surrounding the terrorist attack in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, that resulted in the murder of four Americans—including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Unfortunately, you and your senior administration officials have not been forthcoming in providing answers to the many questions that have emerged.
On October 9, 2012, we sent a letter to the senior intelligence officials in your administration in an effort to obtain answers to these questions. More than three weeks have passed, and we still have not received a response. To make matters worse, since that original letter, we sent several subsequent letters to you or to your senior administration officials asking a number of questions, and we have failed to receive a single letter in response.
The American people and their representatives in Congress need to understand what you knew about the Benghazi terrorist attack and when you knew it. We also have a right to know what steps you and your administration took—or failed to take—before, during, and after the terrorist attack to protect American lives.
In order to facilitate an immediate response to our important questions on behalf of the American people, below are the questions from the letters we have sent over the last three weeks.
In our October 9, 2012, letter that we wrote with Senator Saxby Chambliss, we asked the following questions of Director of National Intelligence, James R. Clapper, Jr.; Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, David H. Petraeus; and Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and Deputy National Security Advisor, John Brennan:

• Within 48 hours of the attack, was there credible information and reporting to suggest that the assault on our Consulate and other U.S. facilities in Benghazi should be characterized as a terrorist attack?
• At what time did intelligence community agencies or elements first assess that the events in Benghazi were a terrorist attack?
• What information did the intelligence community provide to senior policymakers that led some of them to draw the conclusion as late as five days after the attack in Benghazi that it was the result of a spontaneous demonstration, not a terrorist act?

Page 1 of 2
Was there no credible evidence at that late date that was compelling enough for the intelligence community and the senior policymakers to draw a conclusion with at least moderate confidence that the attack in Benghazi was a terrorist act?
On October 15, 2012, Senator Graham sent letters to Mr. Brennan, Director Clapper, Director Petraeus, as well as National Security Advisor Thomas Donilon. The letters highlighted the fact that on June 6, 2012, assailants placed an improvised explosive device (IED) on the north gate of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. The IED detonated and ripped a hole in the security perimeter that was described by one individual as "big enough for forty men to go through." This attack was preceded by an earlier IED attack against the Consulate in April 2012. Based on these facts, the letter included the following questions:
• Were you aware of these attacks?
• Did you inform the President of these attacks?
• If so, what action was taken to protect our Consulate?
• If you did not inform the President, why not?
On October 15, 2012, Senator Graham sent you a similar letter asking the following questions:
• Were you informed of these attacks on our Libyan Consulate?
• If not, why not?
• Did you consider these serious events?
• If you were informed, what action was taken to protect the Consulate?
On October 19, 2012, we sent a follow-up letter to the same three senior intelligence officials in your administration noting that ten days had elapsed since we sent the October 9 letter.
On October 24, 2012, we sent a letter to you asking the following questions:

Senators Again Urge Obama to Answer Key Questions about Benghazi Attack | The Weekly Standard

Petraeus and Panetta Speak—But Not the President

1:00 PM, Oct 31, 2012 • By WILLIAM KRISTOL
http://www.alipac.us/sites/all/theme...s/rss-icon.gif
http://w.sharethis.com/images/check-small.png http://w.sharethis.com/images/check-small.png http://w.sharethis.com/images/check-small.png http://w.sharethis.com/images/check-small.png
















Seven weeks later, the White House still hasn't explained what President Obama did and didn't do during the seven hours of the attack on Benghazi on September 11. And there's been no response from the White House to questions asked by senators or THE WEEKLY STANDARD or David Ignatius in the Washington Post.

We have, to be sure, heard from some government officials. But the information they've provided raises still more questions.
CIA director David Petraeus authorized a statement pointedly saying that "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate"—which strongly suggests that Petraeus believes or knows that officials in other parts of the government may have told subordinates "not to help those in need."
Those could have been officials in the Defense Department. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta seemed to suggest that was the case: "The basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on; without having some real-time information about what's taking place, and as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation."





Related Stories

• White House Tries to Throw Military Under Bus
• Ten Questions for the White House
• W.H. Tries to Write Al Qaeda Out of Libya Story
• Spinning Benghazi
• Biden: 'Not Going to Speculate' on Whether I Should've ...

More by William Kristol

• Obama's September 11 Phone Call
• Ten Questions for the White House
• Losing from Behind
• Marvellous Mitt
• Petraeus Throws Obama Under the Bus

Panetta's statement only makes sense if there were those in the military or elsewhere who considered or urged deploying forces into harm's way, and that those individuals were overruled because of the lack of real-time information. Take another look at what Panetta said: "As a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation." In other words, Panetta is acknowledging forces could have been put at risk, but that a decision was made not to do so. Maybe this was the right decision—but since we've been given no details at all, and since the Obama administration refuses to answer questions, it's hard to know. Indeed, since there seems in fact to have been "real-time information" available from those fighting on the ground, Panetta's excuse for inaction would at least require considerable elaboration to be convincing.
In response perhaps to the questions raised by Petraeus and Panetta, there now appears to be an attempt by some defense officials to suggest there really wasn't much more that could have been done on September 11, given limitations on the assets and capabilities available. But such explanations have only been provided indirectly and on background. Shouldn't some senior officer explain this on the record if it's true? And how can that argument be reconciled with Panetta's suggestion that more could have been done but that it would have been too risky to try?
So here's where we are: Petraeus has made clear the CIA wasn't responsible for the decision not to act. Panetta has tried to take the responsibility himself—and the White House has seemed to encourage this interpretation of events. But Panetta's position is untenable: The Defense Department doesn't get to unilaterally decide whether it's too risky or not to try to rescue CIA operators, or to violate another country's air space. In any case, it’s inconceivable Panetta didn't raise the question of what to do when he met with the national security adviser and the president at 5 p.m. on the evening of September 11 for an hour. And it's beyond inconceivable he didn't then stay in touch with the White House after he returned to the Pentagon.
So the question remains: What did President Obama do that evening (apart from spending an hour on the phone with Prime Minister Netanyahu)? What did he know, and what did he decide, and what was the basis for his decisions?
Petraeus has disclaimed responsibility for the decisions of September 11. Panetta has claimed responsibility for decisions that weren't his to make. Both Petraeus and Panetta have raised more questions than they've answered. The only person who can provide the answers the American people deserve is President Obama.

Petraeus and Panetta Speak