Washington Post Urges Congressional Investigation of Obama for Libyan War

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


obama-libya_kurtz

It’s not a bad idea, though the Washington Post Editorial Board presents it as an alternative to Benghazi. Really Benghazi should be a subset of the overall investigation of the Libyan disaster that began with Obama’s illegal war.

Obama lied to Congress, to the UN and to the American people. As a result Al Qaeda has taken over chunks of Libya and Islamist militias and the Muslim Brotherhood have taken over much of the rest.

Republicans have a potentially strong case to make against the Obama administration’s handling of Libya, as the latest political developments there underline…

From the safety of Europe, Mr. Zeidan conceded what was obvious all along: Libya’s post-Gaddafi government has no army and no way of establishing its authority over the hundreds of militias that sprang up in the vacuum that followed the revolution. Libya has fragmented into fiefdoms, its oil industry is virtually paralyzed, massive traffic in illegal weapons is supplying militants around the region and extremist groups such as Ansar al-Sharia, which participated in the Sept. 11, 2012, assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, are unchecked.

The Obama administration and its NATO allies bear responsibility for this mess because, having intervened to help rebels overthrow Gaddafi, they then swiftly exited without making a serious effort to help Libyans establish security and build a new political order. Congress might usefully probe why the administration allowed a country in which it initiated military operations to slide into chaos.

The Washington Post then begins covering up Benghazi and minimizing it.

“Republicans may calculate that scandal-mongering about a Benghazi cover-up may rally the base before the fall’s elections. What it’s not likely to do is hold the Obama administration accountable for its actual failings in Libya.”

Since there were no casualties in the actual war and the media refused to report on everything wrong with the conflict, the public isn’t likely to care about an overall investigation.

The Washington Post has hardly been out front beating the drums about it either. It just now announces that the plan to, illegally, implement regime change was a bad idea. But where was it before?

The editorial still fails to address other core issues with the Libyan War, namely that it was illegal and that the rebels we were backing were linked to Al Qaeda. If the Washington Post wants to be honest, it needs to begin there.

  • Ban Liberals

    Should we call this his WaterLOO or his WaterGATE?

  • American1969

    This administration has a great deal to answer for with regard to foreign policy:
    * Why have they destabilized the entire region of the Middle East by dismantling everything that worked, leaders that worked with us, etc.?
    * Why have they continually undermined and slapped Israel in the face in favor of the Palestinians?
    * What was going on at Benghazi? Why was the CIA there if they weren’t running guns? That’s the kind of stuff the CIA does.
    * Why was no help sent when there was a siege for EIGHT HOURS?
    * Why has the administration done everything to stonewall, lie, and obfuscate on this thing all the way down the line?
    Now the MSM is blatantly attempting to protect this administration. They don’t even try to hide it anymore! Anyone who claims that the MSM isn’t in the tank or even on the payroll of this administration is living in Fantasy Land.

  • truebearing

    And in other news, the Washington Post has taken a firm editorial stance on the bombing of Pearl Harbor, excoriating the Japanese for their ruthlessness. They are also demanding an investigation into our failure to detect the raid.

  • Mark

    I think the Washington Post is engaged in a bait and switch. they want the scope of the Benghazi investigation to broaden. There would be many more detail to remember and quibble about. You average working person will not have a score card, will not have the time and will get lost in the detail.

    If the scope is broaden then the left can throw up roadblocks misconstrue facts while looking like they are trying to be helpful. They’ll rue how a good ideal was ruined by poor Republican execution of an investigation.

    That is all this is really about.
    If they did actually collide with the White house or other polticos they are on the same page anyway because they are fellow traveler and are trying to throw the White house a lifeline.

    • DB1954

      The Post is trying to slow the investigation down and throw it off track.

  • Mark

    “The Obama administration and its NATO allies bear responsibility for this mess because, having intervened to help rebels overthrow Gaddafi, they then swiftly exited without making a serious effort to help Libyans establish security and build a new political order”

    How did that go the last time? Right, we stayed and tried to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, while getting fragged by the Democrat politicians and liberal journalist.

    Maybe Obama was smart in that case. while it might have been dumb to oust Gadaffi, it would have been political suicide to stay and try to rebuild Libya. The Left would have excoriated him after initialing supporting him. Because they would have been for rebuilding Libya, before they were against rebuilding Libya.

    • DB1954

      Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi in order to facilitate and oversee the shipment of arms to Muslim Brotherhood and possibly al Queda affiliated groups fighting in Syria. The ship carrying those arms was bound for Turkey, where the arms would then be transported to MB rebels in Syria.

      These are the same arms which Obama sent to the Libyan rebels. After Gaddafi’s regime fell, the CIA rounded up the weapons and most were stored in the Benghazi compound. That’s why the compound was supposed to be secure. In fact, it was a weapons safe house. Stevens went to Benghazi to facilitate the transfer of those arms to Turkey. This shipment was illegal under international law. The CIA does this type of thing all the time, so that’s not the reason for the cover up.

      The real crime was not what Ambassador Stevens was doing in Benghazi. The real crime–that is, that which was illegal under American law–was the original shipment of arms to al-Queda affilated groups in Libya. Obama violated American law in giving, selling or loaning arms to al-Queda.

  • DB1954

    1. An investigation into the Obama administration’s actions in supporting the Libyan rebels to overthrow Gaddafi is what’s called a “red herring,” –something proposed in order to throw off the scent dogs, i.e., the investigators. It might be interesting, but they’ll never get to the Benghazi matter.

    2. The Washington Post opines that any Congressional investigation is “not likely to hold Obama administration accountable” (for the Benghazi debacle)?

    So if there’s no investigation the Obama administration will be held to account of the Benghazi debacle?

    How much sense does that make?