07.24.2014  |   | Subscribe  | Contact us

All News & Blogs

E-mail Alerts

Let's address that Benghazi 'confusion'


Date published: 12/21/2012

Let's address that Benghazi 'confusion'

Reading Joe Nordsieck's letter on Dec. 3, ["Don't be hypocritical re: Benghazi"], I concur with a portion of his introductory sentence: He is, indeed, confused.

He calls Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham "hypocrites" for condemning U.N. Ambassador Rice's misleading statements about the U.S. consulate attack in Benghazi, citing Colin Powell's testimony at the U.N. regarding WMDs in Iraq during the Bush administration. How quickly Nordsieck forgets.

On Dec. 16, 1998, President Clinton addressed the nation during an evening telecast. He began: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world."

The timing of the attack (during his impeachment proceedings) is a matter for another day.

Numerous Democrats in both the House and Senate are on record supporting the president's actions and his reasons for taking them. Was Clinton lying? His national security team was certain that Iraq possessed WMDs. As such, why would Colin Powell be a "liar" whereas his predecessor, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, was not? The Bush administration simply perpetuated assumptions held by the Clinton administration.

The talking points parroted by Rice were edited by elements of the Obama administration to omit any references to Al-Qaida, and there is growing evidence that Rice knew before visiting Sunday morning news programs that the attack was not provoked by a clip on YouTube.

I hope this remedies some of Nordsieck's confusion.

Gary Long

Spotsylvania